Language Teachers and Teaching : Global Perspectives, Local Initiatives 9781134466856, 9780415636278

Citation preview

Language Teaching

Teachers

and

This volume gathers contributions from a range of global experts in teacher education to address the topic of language teacher education. It shows how teacher education involves the agency of teachers, which forms part of their identity, and which they take on when integrating into the teaching community of practice. In addition, the volume explores the teachers’ situated practice—the dynamic negotiation of classroom situations, socialization into the professional teaching culture, and “on the ground experimentation” with pedagogical skills/techniques. Selim Ben Said is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. His research interests include language policy and planning, linguistic landscape, and language teacher identity. His most recent project examines Singaporean English teachers’ professional development and socialization through narratives. Lawrence Zhang is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. His research program spans cognitive, linguistic, sociocultural and developmental factors in bilingual/biliteracy acquisition and teacher identity and cognition. The recipient of the “TESOL Award for Distinguished Research” in 2011 from the TESOL International Association for his article published

2

in TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), “A dynamic metacognitive systems perspective on Chinese university EFL readers”, he has served on the editorial boards of a number of international journals, including, TESOL Quarterly, Applied Linguistics Review, Metacognition and Learning and RELC Journal. His recent co-edited book is Asian Englishes: Changing Perspectives in a Globalized World (Pearson Prentice Hall).

3

Routledge Education

Research

in

For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com. 69 Education in the Black Diaspora Perspectives, Challenges, and Prospects Edited by Kassie Freeman and Ethan Johnson 70 Gender, Race, and the Politics of Role Modelling The Influence of Male Teachers Wayne Martino and Goli Rezai-Rashti 71 Educating for Diversity and Social Justice Amanda Keddie 72 Considering Trilingual Education Kathryn Henn-Reinke 73 Commitment, Character, and Citizenship Religious Education in Liberal Democracy Edited by Hanan A. Alexander and Ayman K. Agbaria 74 Adolescent Literacies in a Multicultural Context Edited by Alister Cumming 75 Participation, Facilitation, and Mediation Children and Young People in Their Social Contexts Edited by Claudio Baraldi and Vittorio Iervese 4

76 The Politics of Knowledge in Education Elizabeth Rata 77 Neoliberalism, Pedagogy and Human Development Exploring Time, Mediation and Collectivity in Contemporary Schools Michalis Kontopodis 78 Resourcing Early Learners New Networks, New Actors Sue Nichols, Jennifer Rowsell, Helen Nixon and Sophia Rainbird 79 Educating for Peace in a Time of “Permanent War” Are Schools Part of the Solution or the Problem? Edited by Paul R. Carr and Brad J. Porfilio 80 The Politics of Teacher Professional Development Policy, Research and Practice Ian Hardy 81 Working-Class Minority Students’ Routes to Higher Education Roberta Espinoza 82 Education, Indigenous Knowledges, and Development in the Global South Contesting Knowledges for a Sustainable Future Anders Breidlid 83 Teacher Development in Higher Education Existing Programs, Program Impact, and Future Trends Edited by Eszter Simon and Gabriela Pleschová

5

84 Virtual Literacies Interactive Spaces for Children and Young People Edited by Guy Merchant, Julia Gillen, Jackie Marsh and Julia Davies 85 Geography and Social Justice in the Classroom Edited by Todd W. Kenreich 86 Diversity, Intercultural Encounters, and Education Edited by Susana Gonçalves and Markus A. Carpenter 87 The Role of Participants in Education Research Ethics, Epistemologies, and Methods Edited by Warren Midgley, Patrick Alan Danaher and Margaret Baguley 88 Care in Education Teaching with Understanding and Compassion Sandra Wilde 89 Family, Community, and Higher Education Edited by Toby S. Jenkins 90 Rethinking School Bullying Dominance, Identity and School Culture Ronald B. Jacobson 91 Language, Literacy, and Pedagogy in Postindustrial Societies The Case of Black Academic Underachievement Paul C. Mocombe and Carol Tomlin

6

92 Education for Civic and Political Participation A Critical Approach Edited by Reinhold Hedtke and Tatjana Zimenkova 93 Language Teaching Through the Ages Garon Wheeler 94 Refugees, Immigrants, and Education in the Global South Lives in Motion Edited by Lesley Bartlett and Ameena Ghaffar-Kucher 95 The Resegregation of Schools Education and Race in the Twenty-First Century Edited by Jamel K. Donnor and Adrienne D. Dixson 96 Autobiographical Writing and Identity in EFL Education Shizhou Yang 97 Online Learning and Community Cohesion Linking Schools Roger Austin and William Hunter 98 Language Teachers and Teaching Global Perspectives, Local Initiatives Edited by Selim Ben Said and Lawrence Jun Zhang

7

8

Language Teaching

Teachers

and

Global Perspectives, Local Initiatives Edited by Selim Ben Said and Lawrence Jun Zhang

9

10

First published 2014 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Taylor & Francis The right of Selim Ben Said and Lawrence Jun Zhang to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

11

Language teachers and teaching : global perspectives, local initiatives / Edited by Selim Ben Said and Lawrence Jun Zhang. pages cm. — (Routledge Research in Education ; 98) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Language teachers—Training of. 2. Language and languages— Study and teaching. I. Said, Selim Ben. P53.85.L37 2013 428.0071—dc23 2013007911 ISBN13: 978-0-415-63627-8 (hbk) ISBN13: 978-0-203-79515-6 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by IBT Global.

12

Contents List of Figures List of Tables Foreword KAREN E. JOHNSON Preface: Towards a Global Understanding LAWRENCE JUN ZHANG AND SELIM BEN SAID Acknowledgments Introduction SELIM BEN SAID AND LAWRENCE JUN ZHANG PART I Policy in Education 1 The Politics of Comparison: The Global and the Local in English Language Teaching and Teacher Education DAVID HAYES AND KYUNGSUK CHANG 2 Developing Teacher Candidates’ Target Language Proficiency: Challenges and Opportunities in a Supportive Institutional and Policy Environment ANTOINETTE GAGNÉ AND MARLON VALENCIA 3 An English Teacher Education Initiative in South Korea: The Sociocultural Theoretic Analysis EUN-JU KIM

13

PART II Theory-Practice Nexus 4 The Role of Approaches and Methods in Second Language Teacher Education NICK ANDON AND CONSTANT LEUNG 5 Infusing Real World Connections in TESOL Teacher Training HONGLI FAN 6 Transformative Teacher Education in Action: Preparing Pre-Service Teachers to Support English Language Learners DAVI S. REIS PART III Beliefs, Expectations, and Negotiating a Professional Self 7 Teaching Spoken English in China: The Relationship between Beliefs and Characteristics of University EFL Teachers CHRISTINE C.M. GOH AND ZAN CHEN 8 Compliance, Negotiation, and Resistance in Teachers’ Spatial Construction of Professional Identities SELIM BEN SAID AND CHITRA SHEGAR

14

9 Understanding Prospective EFL Teachers’ Interest in Teaching ICY LEE PART IV Reflective Practice, Feedback and Facilitation 10 Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Practices: A Case Study of an ESL Teacher in Canada THOMAS S.C. FARRELL TOMENSON-FILION

AND

BARBARA

11 When Things Go Wrong: Feedback on Teaching Practice in TESOL STEPHEN LOUW, RICHARD WATSON TODD, AND PATTAMAWAN JIMARKON 12 Can Primary-Age Pupils Produce Teaching Materials? IAN MCGRATH PART V Teaching and Learning in New Times 13 EFL Teachers’ Conceptual Development and the Transformation of Teaching through Narratives in the E-portfolio TATSUHIRO KAMBARA

YOSHIDA

15

AND

KATSUNORI

14 Speaking Like a ‘Glocal’: Using Computer-Mediated Communication in Language Teacher Education to Promote Network Learning MELINDA DOOLY 15 Beyond Borders, Beyond Expectations: Education and Responsive Teaching

Online

DERYN P. VERITY PART VI Teacher Learning in Cross-Cultural Contexts 16 Developing Intercultural Understanding in Teacher Education within the Context of Language and Literacy across the Curriculum VITALIY SHYYAN, WILLIAM LAURENT CAMMARATA

DUNN,

AND

17 Chinese Sojourn Teachers’ Perceptions and Experiences with K–12 U.S. Students: Implications for Cross-Cultural Classroom Management WENYING ZHOU 18 Desire and Desirability: Perceptions of Needs in a Trans-National Language Teacher Education Program JOHN MACALISTER Afterword: Rethinking Global Perspectives and Local Initiatives in Language Teaching

16

B. KUMARAVADIVELU Contributors Author Index Subject Index

17

Figures 2.1 Action system for teacher candidates’ FSL proficiency development in Southern Ontario University’s SLTE program. 8.1 Example of images displayed within the teacher training institute. 8.2 NIE campus map. 8.3 Synthetic/idealized projections of teachers in action. 8.4 Encouraging teachers to espouse the latest developments in the field. 8.5 An intricate pathway to ‘successful’ teaching. 8.6 An aggregate of common endeavours. 8.7 Teachers’ promulgated physical code of conduct. 8.8 ‘Serving with passion’ banner. 8.9 Symbolic incarnation of the notion of perseverance. 8.10 Lack of complementarity in linguistic terms. 13.1 Katsunori’s e-portfolio: top page. 13.2 Katsunori’s weblog on pair-work activities.

18

14.1 Extract 1. 14.2 Extract 2. 14.3 End of 1st term wiki post. 14.4 End of 2nd term wiki post. 14.5 Reflection on implementation wiki post. 14.6 Online chat transcript. 14.7 Online chat transcript (continued). 14.8 Online chat transcript (continued). 14.9 Online chat transcript (initiation). 14.10 Online chat transcript (continued). 14.11 Online chat transcript (continued). 16.1 Distribution of developmental orientations (pre-test). 16.2 Distribution of developmental orientations (post-test). 17.1 Connections between factors of holding onto the home cultural expectations and management strategies. 17.2 Connections between factors of holding onto the home cultural expectations and management strategies. 17.3 Theoretical framework.

19

18.1 Overlapping perceptions.

20

Tables 7.1 Demographic Details of Survey Respondents (N = 527) 7.2 Summary of Principle Component Analysis for the 6-item BOET (N = 227) 7.3 Goodness-of-Fit Indexes For the Two-Factor BOET Model (N = 300) 7.4 Descriptive Statistics for Each Subscale in BOET (N = 527) 7B.1 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Teaching Experience 7B.2 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Overseas Experience 7B.3 T-test Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Training Experience 7B.4 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Learning 7B.5 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Self-Perceived Speaking Ability 7B.6 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Familiarity with Methodology

21

10.1 Mark’s Stated Teacher Beliefs 10.2 Mark’s Observed Classroom Practices 11.1 Summary of Data From Jenny’s Turns for Each of the Four Feedback Sessions 12.1 Examples of Activities for Pupils Aged 6–11 17.1 Emerging Categories 18.1 Characteristics of BANA and TESEP Approaches (Holliday, 1994) 18.2 Overview of Teacher Training Program 18.3 Categories, Themes, and Predominant Responses

22

Foreword Karen E. Johnson Whereas much of English language teaching in the 21st century seems to be driven by an increasingly globalized world, it is refreshing to read a collection of empirical studies that capture the local practices of dedicated teacher educators who are seeking to professionalize the English language teaching workforce for this brave new world. Aligned with the call for located L2 teacher education (see Johnson, 2006), this collection documents how teacher educators are attempting to enact professional development practices that both recognize and challenge the normative ways of English language teaching and learning that have been historically embedded in their local contexts. As such, they are actively navigating the dominant discourses that tend to keep the status quo firmly in place while intentionally pushing the limits of what is possible in their local contexts. This, they do, with the ultimate goal of supporting their teachers as they seek to re-envision their own professional worlds. So whereas the subtitle of this collection is “Global Perspectives, Local Initiatives,” I have no doubt that invested readers will walk away with a rich understanding of how local roles are working to alter what we traditionally think of as global rules. Throughout much of our history, English language teacher education has assumed uniformity in what teachers need to know and be able to do. In fact, such uniformity has constituted our professional self-definition: the de-facto

23

knowledge base of English language teacher education. As was argued more than a decade ago, the subject matter of that knowledge base has been defined largely based on how learners acquire second languages, rather than on how second language teaching is learned or how it is practiced (see Freeman & Johnson, 1998). This collection, addresses the latter, providing striking evidence of the ways in which teacher educators are creating locally appropriate responses to the professional development needs of their teachers. Likewise, it documents how teacher educators consciously recognized how changing sociopolitical and socioeconomic contexts affect the ways in which teachers are positioned, how and why they enact their teaching practices as they do, and the kinds of learning environments they are willing and able to create in their classrooms. Taken as a whole, this collection captures not only how English language teaching is learned, but how English language teacher education is practiced. Whereas this collection shifts our attention to the preparation of English language teachers locally, the globalization of English has created new challenges for English language teacher education. Today, teacher educators struggle with questions such as: What variety of English should our teachers teach? What level of English proficiency is necessary to be an effective English teacher? How can we best support the learning of teaching in our local contexts? And how do we prepare teachers locally for the global contexts in which they will eventually work? Such questions require teacher educators to prepare teachers with the dispositions, or habits of mind, that will enable them to recognize that when it comes to teaching, context is everything (see Freeman, 2002) and knowing what and how to teach always depends (see 24

Johnson, 1999). The accounts of teacher learning documented in this collection illustrate the power of knowing how to think about teaching, rather than simply knowing what to do in the classroom. In fact, it positions the development of such dispositions as the essence of professional expertise. More strikingly, however, this collection demonstrates that English language teacher education is fundamentally about people. People with rich histories, resilient beliefs, and multi-layered identities that emerge from and are shaped by the social, cultural, political, and economic environment from which they have come and in which they learn and work. The development of teaching expertise, regardless of the instructional context, is about trying on and taking up new identities, it is a deeply personal matter, and often emotionally charged in ways that are rarely recognized officially in teacher education programs. Yet, the emotional dimension of becoming a teacher resonates throughout much of this collection, and when tapped into as a resource rather than viewed as a distraction, cuts to the essence of what it takes to become a teacher. Finally, readers of this collection cannot help but come to the realization that English language teacher education is a political act. Policy makers, universities, educational administrators, the testing industry, and textbook publishers all compete to influence the professionalization of teachers. Yet, whereas national policies are intended to infuse educational reform and mandated curricula are designed to restructure teaching practices as well as learning outcomes, high-stakes assessments continue to maintain a firm grip on what students, teachers, administrators, and society value most in English language education. Learning to navigate 25

these political waters in changing sociopolitical and socioeconomic times rests squarely on teacher education programs. As this collection demonstrates, it is through quality professional development experiences that teachers gain the intellectual tools to position themselves as transformative intellectuals—“professionals who are able and willing to reflect upon the ideological principles that inform their practice, who connect pedagogical theory and practice to wider social issues, and who work together to share ideas, and exercise power over the conditions of more human life” (Giroux & McLaren, 1989, p. xxiii). Whereas transformative teacher education is largely a local activity, it has the potential for far-reaching global effects. This collection makes an important contribution to the field of English language teacher education by documenting the local roles that teacher education plays in the professionalization of the English language teaching workforce for an increasingly globalized world.

References Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1–13. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K.E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

26

Johnson, K.E. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Johnson, K.E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257.

27

Preface Towards a Global Understanding of Local Initiatives in Language Teaching and Teacher Education— Global Rules, Local Roles Lawrence Jun Zhang and Selim Ben Said Education has been a human endeavor since early civilizations. Yet, the kind of “teaching” involving a learner is a nascent emergent form of education intuitively conceived of and developed by mainly parents and those who were concerned with educating the next generation for social good and pragmatic survival. A popular ancient saying, which is often associated with the great Oriental Sage, Confucius (551–479 BC), of the Spring and Autumn Period of Chinese history, highlights the importance of developing skills for survival and of course, by extension, for learning: “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for today; teach a man to fish, and you will feed him for a lifetime.” Nonetheless, the teaching just mentioned, in comparison with the professional practice of recent times, was not as principled a practice as it

28

is today, nor was it driven by educators’ systematic theorizing of any sort. In contrast, the kind of education we talk about in relation to classroom teaching in a systematically organized manner is a relatively modern endeavor. Dewey’s “Laboratory School” (1902/1990) was the site for fermenting his educational thought on curriculum and instruction. Teacher education for that matter emerged almost concomitantly to how education itself evolved. More recent understandings of education and teacher education reflect the needs of society in different times for economic benefit as well as social change. However, key to the concept of education is still effectiveness in learning and teaching and how it can be achieved through teacher preparation and professional development to meet the changing needs of local and global contexts. The pursuit for effectiveness is of paramount interest to educators and teacher-preparation institutions in our present time because of the globalized world in which we live. Despite disagreement on what makes a teacher, most of us who work in education in general and teacher education in particular tend to agree with Shulman (1987) that “teaching is, essentially, a learned profession. A teacher is a member of a scholarly community. He or she must understand the structures of the subject matter, the principles of inquiry that help answer two kinds of questions in each field: What are the important ideas and skills in this domain? and How are new ideas added and deficient ones dropped by those in this area? That is, what are the rules and procedures of good scholarship or inquiry?” (p. 1).

29

As Deng (2007) argues, “if Dewey, Bruner, and Schwab hoped to change society through educational reform, with a focus on the school curriculum, Shulman and associates hoped to change education through professionalizing teaching, with an emphasis on enhancing teachers’ professional knowledge—subject matter knowledge in particular. There has been a relative silence about the school curriculum in their discourse on teacher professionalization” (p. 292). Although Shulman addresses issues of teacher education which are germane to all disciplines (see also Shulman, 1986), the two significant questions he raises are as much pertinent to first language or mother-tongue language teaching and teacher education as to its counterpart in second and foreign language teacher education. The significant strides of development in second and foreign language teaching and teacher education (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Andrews, 2003; Barkhuizen & Borg, 2010; Borg, 2003; Breen et al., 2001; Burns, 2005; Burns & Richards, 2009; Canagarajah, 2012; Ellis, 2012; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Freeman & Richards, 1999; Hawkins, 2004b; Holliday, 2005; Johnson, 2009; Johnson & Golombek, 2011; Richards & Lockhart, 1994) illustrate that although unique in its own contextual facets, teacher education in this particular field faces similar challenges. Deng’s concern about teacher professionalization, for example, is an issue that has not been adequately addressed in many parts of the world, typically in Asia, in second and foreign language teacher education. Despite the fact that countries such as Canada and the U.S., among others, have been going through licensure and 30

endorsement processes for TESOL teachers to be streamlined into the teaching profession, it is not always the case in Asia. Whoever is a native English speaker with some degree of education can be sought after at the job market by potential employers (see Braine, 2010, for extended discussions on the topic). What the measure of quality assurance is in those contexts, where being a native speaker is equivalent to being a qualified and competent teacher, is beyond our ken. Having said that, we have to give credit to those institutions that have been implementing rigorous teacher-preparation programs for producing highly qualified TESOL teachers in Asia (see, e.g., D. Liu, 1998; J. Liu, 2009; Zhang, 2004). This kind of institutionalized practice, in our view, is a good countermeasure against the native-speaker supremacy in our profession. What is inherent in this practice is a belief that is consistent with Shulman’s concept that teaching is a learned profession, and the learning process is guided by theoretical underpinnings of human learning and pedagogical practices which are proven to be effective in particular locales, i.e., learning takes place within particular learning communities and therefore it is “situated” (Lave & Wenger, 1991; see also Hawkins, 2004a; Johnson, 2009; Tsui et al., 2009), and individuals need to have opportunities for expressing their own voices (Gao & Zhang, 2011; Zhang, 2005) through exploratory practice (Allwright & Hanks, 2009).

Global Rules, Local Roles The subject matter of language teaching and language teacher education also engages the field with how trans-national knowledge production and reproduction occur. Whereas 31

different regions and countries around the world implement what is supposed to be effective practice either in specific teaching sessions or teacher education classrooms, what is brought to the fore by academics and teacher educators are newly generated knowledge, new concepts in language teaching and teacher education, and how these should be explored to maximize student learning. Many times, fads which come from the West, are naturally brought into the picture, such that they become a choice by default or panacea for those working in the East to learn from the West due to large numbers of Western or Western-trained professionals involved in the teaching profession around the globe. Sometimes a fad comes and goes. Such a trend appears to be a global rule, but how specific contexts react to it is really a matter of informed decision making which should be based on critical appraisal of anything that is to be adapted or adopted. Communicative language teaching (CTL) is such an example, which we will take up as an illustration next. There have been prolonged debate and discussion about CLT, particularly with regard to the “difficulty” in implanting it. Zhang (2011) has argued that claims made about CLT are actually based on a narrow or inaccurate understanding of what CLT entails, advocates, and discourages. He cites Richards (2005) by highlighting the 10 core assumptions underlying CLT today: • 1) Second language learning is facilitated when learners are engaged in interaction and meaningful communication. • 2) Effective classroom learning tasks and exercises provide opportunities for students to negotiate meaning, expand their language resources, notice 32

• • •

•

• • •

•

how language is used, and take part in meaningful intrapersonal exchange. 3) Meaningful communication results from students processing content that is relevant, purposeful, interesting, and engaging. 4) Communication is a holistic process that often calls upon the use of several language skills or modalities. 5) Language learning is facilitated both by activities that involve inductive or discovery learning of underlying rules of language use and organization, as well as by those involving language analysis and reflection. 6) Language learning is a gradual process that involves creative use of language and trial and error. Although errors are a normal product of learning, the ultimate goal of learning is to be able to use the new language both accurately and fluently. 7) Learners develop their own routes to language learning, process at different rates, and have different needs and motivations for language learning. 8) Successful language learning involves the use of effective communication strategies. 9) The role of the teacher in the language classroom is that of a facilitator, who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and provides opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to reflect on language use and language learning. 10) The classroom is a community where learners learn through collaboration and sharing. (Richards, 2005, p. 25)

33

Richards further explains that the current practice of CLT draws on earlier traditions of CLT and is not completely divorced from traditional approaches. Thus, CLT classroom activities can be organized to develop students’ communicative competence by learning grammar in context, due to a need arising in a particular communicative task. Therefore, it is clear that CLT is concerned with the engagement of learners in communication to allow them to develop their communicative competence, of which linguistic ability is an important part. It involves all the language skills, instead of only oral competence. In the context of some kind of confusion prevalent among second and foreign language teachers about CLT, Savignon (2007) emphasizes that: CLT is not concerned exclusively with face-to-face oral communication. The principles of CLT apply equally to reading and writing activities that involve readers and writers engaged in the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning; the goals of CLT depend on learner needs in a given context. CLT does not require small group or pair work; group tasks have been found helpful in many contexts as a way of providing increased opportunity and motivation for communication. However, classroom group or pair work should not be considered an essential feature and may well be inappropriate in some contexts. Finally, CLT does not exclude a focus on metalinguistic awareness or knowledge of rules of syntax, discourse, and social appropriateness. (p. 213) Evidently, CLT as a Western ideology transpired into Oriental cultures has not been appropriately understood by academics and professionals in our field in some quarters. A “strong” version and a “weak” version of CLT exist in the professional literature. Unfortunately, those lamenting the 34

difficulty do so with reference to the “strong” version only. In fact, the recent development of CLT into task-based learning and teaching (TBLT), as summarized by Richards earlier and also as Ellis (2003) expounds, shows that those who are still against CLT base their arguments on a flawed understanding, which takes CLT to mean essentially oral communication in a very narrow sense. Research has also shown that there are other factors such as heavy teaching load in specific teaching situations that result in teachers’ unwillingness to use CLT in the classroom. For example, Pennington and Richards (1997) have found that, after graduation from teacher-education programs where they were trained to teach, Hong Kong teachers had to re-orient “from teaching language communicatively to covering the required syllabus and materials” (p. 149). Therefore, we think that, in order for CLT to be effectively implemented, those who are engaged with English language teaching will have to follow some of the descriptive guidelines as Richards (2005) and Savignon (2007) have spelled out. Only with a good grasp of what CLT is will ELT professionals be able to see that CLT needs to take on a new meaning, because it has been embraced by the local consumers in the English language teaching profession with modifications. Such global popularity of CLT in its latest edition, namely, TBLT (e.g., Ellis, 2003, 2012; Van den Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009; Skehan, 1996), appears to be the rule for teaching professionals to follow. However, in effect, teachers in specific quarters of the globe practice CLT and/or TBLT variably according to their specific expectations. In other words, contexts and cultures define the practice of language teaching and teacher education in today’s world (Young, 2009; Zhang, 2004, 2005).

35

The dynamics of how English is changing within a specific social context might enable the redefinition of what effective language teaching is, too. And coupled with this are the evolving identities of language teachers in the classroom and beyond (Tsui, 2009; Tsui et al., 2009). The old paradigm that second and foreign language teachers must speak with a native-speaker accent and conform to a Western norm in behavior becomes obsolete in today’s world where a large number of non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) are actively engaged in teaching and research in the profession. World Englishes are commonplace in international communication, and representations of identity and diversity of language users and language teachers in terms of training background and educational experiences are an essential part of language and communication in social and educational settings (Canagarajah & Ben Said &, 2010; Rubdy, Zhang, & Alsagoff, 2011; Zhang, 2010). The “monolingual bias” (Kachru, 1994), which penetrates second language acquisition (SLA) and TESOL research and depicts bilingualism and multilingualism in deficit terms, is also contested (May, 2011). Such positioning shows that the global and the local are close neighbors, who can grow together, informing each other of the utility of ideologies and practices of both sides for fine-tuning CLT to serve the local need for optimal student learning (see also Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Zhang, Rubdy, & Alsagoff, 2011). Teacher education by necessity will have to be streamlined into this kind of systematic thinking, taking stock of the advantages that each side can offer. Hawkins (2004b) uses a metaphor to portray classrooms as ecological systems, and in her words, it is “the co-dependence of factors that together construct and define the nature of the 36

learning that takes place” (p. 21). Her elaboration of classrooms as complex ecosystems convincingly tells us that “all of the participants, the practices, the beliefs, the forms of language, the forms of literacies, the social, historical and institutional context(s), the identity and positioning work, the politics and power relations, the mediational tools and resources, the activity and task designs, and the influences of the multiple local and global communities within which they are situated come together in fluid, dynamic, and ever-changing constellations of interactions, each one impacting the other” (p. 21). Richards (2008) posits that the development of second language teacher education (SLTE) in recent times has been influenced by two factors. One is an “internally initiated change,” which, in his understanding, is the profession’s understanding of what it entails to be a good language teacher, i.e., what essential “knowledge base and associated instructional practices” should be part of this enterprise (p. 159). The other is the external pressures such as the fact that the world is becoming increasingly globalized, and, as a result, there is a need for English to serve as a language at the globalized market for intercultural and interlingual communication, namely, English as a lingua franca (e.g., Jenkins, 2006; Kirkpatrick, 2007, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2011). External pressures might have also derived from language teaching policies controlled by the national educational authorities. As Richards rightly observes, much of the discussion in recent years in the professional literature is probably of interest only to academics and issues such as reflective teaching and critical pedagogy have all emerged because of scholars’ aspirations to explore the field of SLTE as an academic discipline. Nevertheless, given the centrality 37

of teacher learning in teaching education, the kind of self-initiated efforts such as reflective practice (Farrell, 2007; Richards & Farrell, 2005, 2011) and critical pedagogy (Hawkins & Norton, 2009; Luke, Luke, & Graham, 2007) as mentioned by Richards, (2008, p. 159) warrant further investigation. We echo Freeman (2002; see also Johnson, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2007; Schulman, 1986, 1987) that “teacher learning is the core activity of teacher education and therefore that any improvements in the professional preparation of teachers, including those who teach English and other second languages, need to be informed by this research” (p. 1).

Critical Language Education in Second and Foreign Language Teacher Education Economic and cultural globalization have definitive impacts on language and language education (Luke et al., 2007), as government policies change according to the power pendulum swings. The impact of English as an international language mainly due to American dominance in recent times has been manifested in many contemporary societies of the world in the field of English language teaching, particularly in TESOL. For example, Kubota and McKay (2009) report the impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan, which has led to an increasing emphasis on the use and status of English in Japanese society and schools. Similarly, Nunan (2003) addresses this in relation to the educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region, including the “Greater China” region. Wang (2007) 38

documents recent policy changes in the provision of English in the national curriculum in China, highlighting that English is highly regarded as a language for scientific advancement and cultural exchange. Given this background, it appears that language teaching and language teacher education have to service a global society (Kumaravadivelu, 2010) and teachers have to develop acumen for making judgment on how cross-cultural communication and English learning and teaching per se are not going to be part of cultural and linguistic imperialism in our profession (Canagarajah, 1999; McKay, 2002; Morgan, 2004). Such consciousness-raising is significant because many learners and even some teachers are not aware of the perils of pursuing the so-called “pure” English, which will seldom become a reality for the majority of adolescent and adult EFL learners and professional teachers. Being cognizant of how the use of English is linked to speaker identity is probably a necessary step for such learners to take challenges when their legitimacy as speakers and users of English is contested. In fact, scholars have discussed this extensively in relation to learners and teachers in this modern world. For teachers, in particular, their identities are reflected in their professional practices in the classroom, and “identity as pedagogy” (Morgan, 2004) reflects the importance of the teacher as a unique individual in the classroom in interacting with students. Without any doubt, teachers of English in other contexts, where English is not the first community or home language, can still do a good job in the profession and in classrooms without having to conform to native English-speaker norms (McKay, 2002; Ramanathan, 2005; Reis, 2011); neither do they need to pursue a native English-speaking teacher identity. These bi-lingual and multi-lingual teachers 39

(Kirkpatrick, 2007, 2012), instead of being regarded as suffering from a “deficit” (Kachru, 1994), in fact, have their own unique identities, and have advantages over their monolingual native English-speaking counterparts in the English language teaching profession because they are multi-competent (Cook, 1992). Nonetheless, in the eyes of the general public, native English speakers are always assumed to be good teachers, no matter whether that is a fallacy or truth. Whereas it is difficult to change such a perception in society, it is always essential to distinguish good teachers from poor ones, whether native or non-native, along the criteria of competencies, which encompass the teacher’s content or subject knowledge (including linguistic knowledge and skills), pedagogical knowledge and skills, and professional ethics, among other things. Indeed, teaching English as an international language is a struggle (Holliday, 2005), which involves multi-layered and multi-dimensional ideologies, politics, and professional practice. What teacher educators should bear in mind are issues critical to the continuous growth of teachers as professionals and teaching as a legitimate profession. Earlier studies as well as recent ones that address teacher beliefs in relation to their actual practice in the classroom show how important teacher beliefs change over time and space (Basturkmen, 2012; Borg, 2011; Gatbonton, 1999; Farrell & Kun, 2007; Freeman, 2002; Goh, Zhang, Ng, & Koh, 2005; Gray, 2012; Johnson, 1992, 1994; Woods, 1996). Such beliefs might be indicative of how these teachers develop into expert teachers, which is usually a process of some duration in the field. There exist critical differences between expert and non-expert teachers, as Tsui (2009) ascertains. She found that the groups of teachers in her study are different not only in 40

their ability to integrate teacher knowledge into their teaching practice and in the way they respond to the contexts where they work, but also in their ability to reflect on their professional practice and take remedial action for better performance. Tsui et al.’s (2009) work on school–university partnership for teacher development on a larger scale has produced further evidence lending support to such findings. Teaching and teacher education are negotiated processes, whereby teacher identity is crucial to the successful execution of a lesson. It is in these processes that the teacher and the teacher educator share their expertise in specific knowledge and skill areas; it is also in these processes that the individual self as a professional is revealed naturally. Teacher learning definitely shows how individuals negotiate different teaching strategies, practices, and ways of doing things, or what Canagarajah (2012) terms “professional cultures” for professional identity construction. Many times the teacher and, by inductive reasoning, the teacher educator, too, do not have only one identity but multiple identities. In Canagarajah’s (2012) words, “as global English acquires local identities, and diverse professional communities develop their own socially situated pedagogical practices, it is becoming important to chart a constructive relationship between these communities in TESOL” (p. 258). Such preparation will enable teachers to have a critical awareness of teacher competence that is useful for them to get ready for more challenging and exciting engagement with their students in the classroom and beyond. In terms of critical awareness of teacher competence, language teachers and teacher educators have the privilege of easy access to learners of diverse backgrounds by virtue of 41

the nature of work they do and the kind of students they are in contact with every day. Because of this they are empowered to allow for their students’ fuller participation in the lesson process, to provide them with opportunities to address inequality in education, particularly for learners who come from marginalized communities. Teachers who teach students from the mainstream community can discuss how the values, beliefs, and practices of the cultural groups are represented. Hawkins and Norton (2009) recommend that language teachers with a critical language pedagogy guiding them in language teaching explicate the complex relationships in the professional practice, i.e., in their lesson preparation, delivery, interaction, and relationship with their students (see, e.g., Clark, 2008; Reis, 2011). In discussing international best practice in teaching in general, Darling-Hammond and Lieberman (2012) include in their list “thoughtful professional development that routinely enables teachers to learn with and from one another, both within and across schools and universities” (p. 168). Do second language teachers and teacher educators have to follow the same recommendation as teachers and teacher educators of other subjects? This is an interesting and relevant question that should be addressed. With all these ambitions driving us, we present our readers with a volume, which is a collection of contributions from scholars who work in diverse contexts around the world in the field of second and foreign language education.

42

References Allwright, D., & Bailey, K.M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Andrews, S. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher. Language Awareness, 12, 81–95. Barkhuizen, G., & Borg, S. (2010). Editorial: Researching language teacher education. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 237–249. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40, 282–295. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109. Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service education on language teachers’ beliefs. System 39, 370–380. Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge.

43

Breen, M.P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 11, 470–501. Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching, 38, 57–74. Burns, A., & Richards, J.C. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A.S. (2012). Teacher development in a global profession: An autoethnography. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 258–279. Canagarajah, A.S., & Ben Said, S. (2010). English language teaching in the outer and expanding circles. In J. Maybin & J. Swann (Eds.), The Routledge companion to English language studies. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Clarke, M. (2008). Language teacher identities: Co-constructing discourse and community. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V.J. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557–591. Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (2012). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from

44

international practice? In L. Darling-Hammond & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Teacher education around the world: Changing policies and practices (pp. 151–169). New York: Routledge. Deng, Z. (2007). Transforming the subject matter: Examining the intellectual roots of pedagogical content knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 37, 279–295. Dewey, J. (1902/1990). The school and society & the child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1902) Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Willey-Blackwell. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London, UK: Continuum. Farrell, T.S.C., & Kun, T.K.S. (2007). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs, and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 29, 381–403. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from north American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching.’ Language Teaching, 35, 1–13.

45

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K.E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. Freeman, D., & Richards, J.C. (Eds.). (1999). Teacher learning in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gao, X.S., & Zhang, L.J. (2011). Joining forces for synergy: Agency and metacognition as interrelated theoretical perspectives on learner autonomy. In G. Murray, T. Lamb, & X. Gao (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy: Exploring their links (pp. 25–41). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 83, 35–50. Goh, C.C.M., Zhang, L.J., Koh, G.H., & Ng, C.H. (2005). Knowledge, beliefs and syllabus implementation: A study of English language teachers in Singapore. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Gray, S.M. (2012). From principles to practice: Collegial observation for teacher development. TESOL Journal, 3, 231–255. Hawkins, M.R. (Ed.). (2004a). Language learning and teacher education: A socio-cultural approach (pp. 89–109). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

46

Hawkins, M.R. (2004b). Researching English language and literacy development in schools. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–25. Hawkins, M.R., & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157–181. Johnson, K.E. (1992). Learning to teach. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507–535. Johnson, K.E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre-service ESL teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 439–452. Johnson, K.E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. Johnson, K.E., & Golombek, P.R. (Eds.) (2011). Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. New York, NY: Routledge. Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 795–800.

47

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English as an international language in Asia: Implications for language education. In A. Kirkpatrick & R. Sussex (Eds.), English as an international language in Asia, pp. 29–44. New York: Springer. Kubota, R., & McKay, S. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 593–619. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59–82. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2007). Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2010). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing. New York: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Liu, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students. English Language Teaching Journal, 52, 3–10.

48

Liu, J. (Ed.). (2009). English language teaching in China: New perspectives, approaches, and standards. London: Continuum. Luke, A., Luke, C., & Graham, P.W. (2007). Globalization, corporatism and critical language education. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1, 1–13. May, S. (2011). The disciplinary constraints of SLA and TESOL: Additive bilingualism and second language acquisition, teaching and learning. Linguistics and Education, 22, 233–247. McKay, S.L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: An introduction to the role of English as an international language and its implications for language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Morgan, B. (2004). Teacher-identity as pedagogy: Towards a field-internal conceptualization in bilingual and second language education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2), 172–188. Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 589–613. Pennington, M., & Richards, J.C. (1997). Reorienting the teaching universe: The experience of five first-year English teachers in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research, 1, 149–178.

49

Ramanathan, V. (2005). Seepages, contact zones, and amalgam: Internationalizing TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 119–123. Reis, D.S. (2011). Non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) and professional legitimacy: A sociocultural theoretical perspective on identity transformation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 208, 139–160. Richards, J.C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 38(2), 158–177. Richards, J.C., & Farrell, T.S.C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C., & Farrell, T.S.C. (2011). Practice teaching: A reflective approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rubdy, R., Zhang, L.J., & Alsagoff, L. (2011). The dynamics of Englishes in Asia: Description, innovation and application in a globalized world. In L.J. Zhang, R. Rubdy, & L. Alsagoff (Eds.), Asian Englishes: Changing perspectives in a globalized world (pp. 1–25). London: Pearson Education.

50

Savignon, S.J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 207–220. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca: A complete introduction to the theoretical nature and practical implications of English used as a lingua franca. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. Tsui, A.B.M. (2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 421–439. Tsui, A.B.M., Edwards, G., Lopez-Real, F., with Kwan, T., Law, D., Stimpson, P., Tang, R., & Wong, A. (2009). Learning in school-university partnership: Sociocultural perspectives. New York: Routledge. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers. Wang, Q. (2007). The national curriculum changes and their effects on English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International

51

handbook of English language teaching (pp. 87–105). Boston: Springer. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Young, R. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Zhang, L.J. (2004). Reforming a teacher education program for PRC EFL teachers in Singapore: Sociocultural considerations and curriculum evolution. International Journal of Educational Reform, 13, 223–252. Zhang, L.J. (2005). Awareness-raising in the TEFL phonology classroom: Student voices and sociocultural and psychological considerations. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 145, 219–268. Zhang, L.J. (2010). Negotiating language, literacy and identity: A sociocultural perspective on children’s language learning strategies in a multilingual ESL classroom in Singapore. The Applied Linguistics Review, 1, 247–270. Zhang, L.J. (2011). The ecology of communicative language teaching: Reflecting on the Singapore experience. In J.P. Chen, Y. Liu, & S.S. Shen (Eds.), Innovating English teaching in China: Selected papers from the 2006 CELEA Annual Conference and the 3rd International Conference on CLT in China (pp. 32–60). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

52

Zhang, L.J., Rubdy, R., & Alsagoff, L. (Eds.). (2011). Asian Englishes: Changing perspectives in a globalized world. Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall.

53

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the four external reviewers for Routledge for their very constructive feedback on the initial book proposal, which has helped us fine-tune our thinking on the contents in the book. We are also grateful to the commissioning editors at Routledge, Max Novick and Stacy Noto, and to assistants Jennifer Morrow and Lauren Verity, whose timely response to our inquiries on anything related to the project and whose understanding have afforded us extra motivation for bringing the project to fruition. We are equally indebted to all reviewers, whose insightful comments on the chapters have helped the authors improve the clarity of the chapters. We would like to record our special gratitude to Sue Gray, Donglan Zhang, and Chengsong Yang, Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, New Zealand, for their precious and unfailing help in reading several drafts of the chapters included in this volume. We would also like to thank the executive committee of the Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics (SAAL) for their advice and encouragements. Finally, both of us are grateful to our family members. Selim would like to express a note of gratitude to his parents (Saida Cherif and Slimene Ben Said), his wife (Jo Shan Fu), and his son (Shamseddine Ben Said) for their unwavering love and precious support. Lawrence would like to record his appreciation to his wife (Donglan), for the many hours she has spent talking with him about the chapters and for providing all the support. The curiosity from his three children (Stella, Stanley, and Stephanie), about why Dad always had to go to his office to work on Saturdays, provided

54

extra motivation for him to complete the book. We believe that they are ready to share the joy of seeing the book finally published. Selim Ben Said Lawrence Jun Zhang

55

Introduction Selim Ben Said and Lawrence Jun Zhang Language teaching has become a booming enterprise due to the increasingly globalized world in which we live. As an important part of this enterprise, language teacher education deserves more attention in the field of language education in order for it to be thoroughly informed by research for more effective professional practice. From this vantage point, we thought of having an edited volume that would bring to fruition a research–practice nexus we have in mind. The inception of this book derives from our concerted conversations on the current issues and debates in the field of teacher education, particularly in relation to applied linguistics and second or foreign language teaching. Bearing on our discussions, we realized that although teacher education and development as an area of academic interest yielded a number of books and research articles (see, e.g., Freeman & Johnson, 1998), in fact, except for a few volumes (e.g., Borg, 2006; Burns & Richards, 2009; Johnson, 2009; Johnson & Golombek, 2011; Woods, 1996), we feel that there is a need to produce a broad-minded and eclectic perspective on the field with contributions aiming at a comprehensive geographical representation of research contexts by scholars who are either working in, or familiar with, these contexts. As a result, we hope that this collection will engage readers with current critical and practical issues on language teaching and language teacher education, although we already have

56

landmark works in our field that address other aspects of language teacher education, e.g., teacher cognition (Borg, 2006; Woods, 1996), teacher professional development (Richards & Farrell, 2005), and reflective teaching and practice (Richards & Lockhart, 1994). Our deliberate garnering of different contributions from a variety of environments worldwide and the inclusion of an eclectic mix of research situations, theoretical paradigms, and empirical scenarios are part of our desire to provide a comprehensive account of the field, which is not limited to a narrowly-defined research tradition. We have intended to show that teacher education involves the agency of teachers, which forms part of their identity and which they take on when integrating the teaching community of practice (see Tsui, 2007). In addition, a considerable part of teachers’ identity consists of situated practice, dynamic negotiation of classroom situations, socialization into the professional teaching culture, and “on the ground experimentation” of pedagogical skills and strategies. Therefore, it is our hope that the contributions in this volume showcase how teacher learning and development consists of a constant and ongoing shift between “being” and “doing,” which translates into actively performing, enacting, and voicing a teaching self in addition to developing “expert” discourses and pedagogical knowledge bases. With respect to the global and local dimensions mentioned in the subtitle of the book, this concretely materializes into having a wide, and in this sense global, palette of contributions on teacher education from a wide array of environments and contexts around the world, each of which showcases an idiosyncratic (local) instantiation of how 57

teacher learning and development is enacted in the particular environment described. This being said, we think that this global/local paradigm is not simply limited to a set of geographical exemplars but will also illustrate, for instance, how teachers and teacher educators are faced with the role of mediators and negotiators between global (e.g., curricula, stakeholders’ advocacies, idealized perspectives, expectations, among other things) and local (e.g., transition into professional lives, narratives, lived experiences, teachers’ socialization, integrating the teachers’ community of practice, etc.) dimensions. In adopting this aim for our edited volume, we have also intentionally chosen not to pre-select or take refuge behind a particular theoretical orientation or methodological approach in order to allow for a more holistic representation of current research in the field, namely, a “theoretical pluralism” (Ellis, 2010, p. 23). Accordingly, we have organized this book into five parts, with the chapters ranging from broad and macro issues to specific and micro aspects of teacher learning and development, in the hope of fleshing out the title and orientation of this book, which not only tackles theoretical and curricular debates on teacher education but also discusses the more practical aspects of the field such as the development of teacher-candidates’ language proficiency, mechanisms for supporting English language learners (ELLs), and materials development, among other things.

Chapters in the Book Part I: Policy in Education includes three chapters. Hayes and Chang’s chapter examines the politics of comparison by

58

critically examining the global and the local in English language teaching and teacher education. They argue that decisions about which dimensions of international comparisons are prioritized in the educational discourse of particular countries are as much political as educational in nature; and the relevance of reforms which often travel from one country to another as a result of these international comparisons needs to be considered within specific sociocultural and educational contexts. Gagné and Valencia’s research into developing teacher candidates’ target language proficiency illustrates challenges and opportunities in the context of a supportive institutional and policy environment. Their case study focuses on the experiences and challenges encountered by a group of teacher educators in supporting the French language proficiency development of future French-as-a-second language (FSL) teachers in a pre-service language teacher education program in Canada. Using activity theory as a theoretical lens to understand the myriad of factors that mediate teacher candidates’ development of their target language proficiency, they believe that their findings have the potential of informing language teacher education programs in diverse contexts. Eun-Ju Kim’s emic approach to exploring a South Korean English teacher education program is another interestingly engaging study undergirded by the sociocultural theory perspective. By analyzing one teacher’s diaries, Kim attempts to show the role of the teacher education program in teacher development, and provides evidence that the program has offered opportunities to perform active mediations which assisted the teacher to be more confident. Part II: Theory–Practice Nexus provides a platform where practical issues are discussed in relation to pertinent theories. 59

Andon and Leung examine the relationships between language teachers’ declared pedagogic approaches and their actual practices, and their relevance to second language teacher education. Starting from a discussion on the established concepts of approaches and methods in English language teaching (e.g., Richards & Rogers, 2001) and their roles in curriculum specifications and teacher education programs, their case studies examine teachers’ beliefs, principles, and practices. Arguing for the importance of looking at contextual factors in this era of “post-methods” pedagogy (Kumaravadivelu, 2006) for pedagogical decisions (Bax, 2003), they suggest that adapting an approach and combining it eclectically with aspects of other approaches requires a good understanding of underlying principles and sensitivity to what works best in particular contexts (see also Zhang, 2004). Fan’s chapter focuses on the importance of connecting pre-service teachers to the real world of language learning and teaching. Fan’s data from two studies based on student journals and student–teacher conferences revealed positive results of such practice, which echoes Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) recommendation for reconceptualizing teacher education. Reis applies Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural theory in his own work. His findings suggest that this theory is a useful framework for guiding teacher educators in preparing pre-service teacher candidates to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students in the U.S. not only in terms of equipping them with pedagogical strategies but also cultivating their emerging identities and dispositions for social justice. Part III: Beliefs, Expectations, and Negotiating a Professional Self is fleshed out with three chapters. Goh and Chen address a specific area in language teaching and learning, the 60

relationship between beliefs and characteristics of university EFL teachers whose main teaching responsibility was oral communication (listening and speaking). Surveying 527 EFL teachers from 56 universities in 29 cities in China, they found that the majority of the teachers recognized the importance of developing their students’ oral communicative competence but generally disagreed with a strong focus on linguistic accuracy. They also found that beliefs differed significantly according to teaching and learning experience, training, overseas exposure, self-perceived speaking ability, and familiarity with teaching speaking methodologies. Ben Said and Shegar explore how a cohort of 15 beginning primary and secondary school teachers negotiate and construct their professional identities in relation to images, signs, and representations “on display” in their former training environment. Based on the recent literature which looks at the linguistic (Shohamy, Ben Rafael, & Barni, 2010) and semiotic (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010) landscapes, they provide evidence of the prompting role played by textual, visual, and spatial resources in shaping identity (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006). In doing so, they successfully show the importance of a contextual understanding of how teachers’ developing identity is construed through modeling, representations, and rejection of the discourses and semi-otic cues available to them. Teacher interest is essential for successful teachers to become motivated professionals, and Lee examines how undergraduate students enrolled in an English language teacher education program in Hong Kong perceived their own interest in teaching English, as well as the factors that influenced their interest development. From her interviews with five pre-service teachers and their post-study reflection papers, she found that pre-service teachers’ interest development was influenced by a number of 61

factors, including opportunities for reflection and modelling of the teacher educator. She, therefore, offers recommendations for an inclusion of these in teacher education programs. Part V: Reflective Practice, Feedback, and Facilitation starts with Farrell and Tomenson-Filion’s chapter, which investigates the relationship between an ESL teacher’s stated beliefs and his classroom practices through interviews and classroom observations. They found that there is a complex relationship in which one teacher’s stated pedagogical beliefs influence his classroom practices. Louw, Watson-Todd, and Jimarkon investigate a complaint by a trainee following feedback given on teaching practice in an intensive four-week TESOL program in Bangkok. Using a corpus analytical approach, the authors analyze keywords from the trainee’s feedback conferences. Their findings reveal how the practice of giving feedback is influenced by trainers’ beliefs. McGrath asks a very interesting and yet challenging question and reports findings about whether primary school-age pupils are able to produce teaching materials. The teachers, who were following in-service courses, were introduced to the theory and practice of such materials through reading and experiential learning. His findings offer convincing evidence of positive learner effects, both affective and cognitive; they also suggest heightened teacher awareness of learner capabilities is necessary for teachers’ continuous professional growth. Part V: Teaching and Learning in New Times addresses various aspects of language teaching and teacher education. Yoshida and Kambara’s effort in EFL teachers’ conceptual development and the transformation of teaching through 62

narratives in the e-portfolio shows how Japanese EFL teachers’ narrative inquiry in a web-based teacher inquiry group contributed to their understanding of language teaching. Their analysis of a male teacher suggested that, by narrating and reflecting upon a critical event (Webster & Mertova, 2007) which occurred in the classroom, the teacher was able to reorient his understanding of pair work. Dooly reports her experience in Spain in using computer-mediated communication in language teacher education to promote network learning. Using a qualitative approach to analyzing teacher education practices imparted through computer-mediated communication (CMC), Dooly explores various collections of learner activity in order to gain insight into specific moments of very complex learning processes. Her analysis points to the importance of the role of language teachers linking the global (intercultural and linguistic experiences for themselves and their students) and the local (socializing “life experiences” in the school and community). Verity takes readers to issues in online education and responsive teaching. By describing an online MATESOL class designed to incorporate and instantiate sociocultural principles of learning and teaching, Verity analyzes student comments, extracts from online discussions, reflection, and analytic concepts in order to show that online instruction is as richly complex and interactive as face-to-face teaching. Teacher learning in cultural contexts is the focus of Part VI, which includes three chapters. Cammarata, Dunn, and Shyyan report their study which was undertaken to follow up on the development of student-teachers’ intercultural competence and their understanding of the relationship between language, literacy, and culture in a course on language and literacy across the curriculum. By triangulating quantitative and 63

qualitative findings based on multiple data collection procedures, they investigate how various areas of teacher education intersect, how they can be effectively addressed together within a single teacher education course, and how they might impact future teachers’ perspectives and practices. Zhou’s analysis of 28 Chinese sojourn teachers’ perceptions and experiences with classroom management in K–12 U.S. schools reveals the importance of understanding culture as a multi-faceted construct embodied in different ways in different contexts (see Zhang, 2011). Following principles of grounded theory, Zhou’s data, which were collected through individual interviews, classroom observations, and the teachers’ blog writings, show a necessity for understanding not only differences in classroom practices but also areas of potential conflicts to ensure successful classroom management. Given the increasing presence of ESL/EFL teacher education programs offered to student-teachers from other countries at English-medium universities these years, Macalister reports his study of a group of student-teachers from Malaysia, where the federal government’s commitment to trans-national pre-service teacher education is a prominent feature. Drawing on interviews with the pre-service teachers and with New Zealand and Malaysian teacher educators, Macalister explores some of the expectations that these different groups have about the time spent in New Zealand.

References Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57, 278–287.

64

Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Burns, A., & Richards, J.C. (Eds). (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (2010). Theoretical pluralism in SLA: Is there a way forward? In P. Seed-house, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising “learning” in applied linguistics (pp. 23–51). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (Eds.). (2010). Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space. New York: Continuum. Johnson, K.E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. Johnson, K.E., & Golombek, P.R. (Eds.). (2011). Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. New York: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

65

Richards, J.C., & Farrell, T.S.C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J., & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shohamy, E., Ben Rafael, E., & Barni, M. (Eds.) (2010). Linguistic landscape in the city. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Tsui, A.B.M. (2007). The complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 657–680. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webster, L., & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method: An introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. London: Routledge. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

66

Zhang, L.J. (2004). Reforming a teacher education program for PRC EFL teachers in Singapore: Sociocultural considerations and curriculum evolution. International Journal of Educational Reform, 13, 223–252. Zhang, L.J. (2011). The ecology of communicative language teaching: Reflecting on the Singapore experience. In J.P. Chen, Y. Liu, & S.S. Shen (Eds.), Innovating English teaching in China: Selected papers from the 2006 CELEA Annual Conference and the 3rd International Conference on CLT in China (pp. 32–60). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

67

Part I Policy in Education

68

1 The Politics of Comparison The Global and the Local in English Language Teaching and Teacher Education David Hayes and Kyungsuk Chang

Introduction This chapter examines English language teaching and teacher education within the context of assertions that national competence in English is a prerequisite for economic growth in a globalized world. Accepting this as a fact, many governments have been motivated by international comparisons of educational effectiveness to search for ‘best practice’ internationally with a view to reforming and enhancing the performance of their education systems. However, decisions about which dimensions of international comparisons are prioritized in the educational discourse of particular countries are as much political as educational in nature; and the relevance of reforms which often travel from one country to another as a result of these international comparisons needs to be considered in specific sociocultural and educational contexts. Here, we examine a number of dimensions of teacher education programs and teacher learning which research seems to indicate produces effective teachers in various 69

contexts internationally. We then go on to examine briefly two other dimensions of international comparison—the status of teaching and social and educational equality—which do not typically figure in discussions of effective English language teaching and teacher education. We contend that these latter dimensions deserve equal attention if reforms in national education systems are to lead to genuine improvement. Reference is made to countries in Asia of which we have direct experience, though we feel the general points made may also be relevant to other contexts.

Globalization, Economic Competitiveness, and English In many countries in Asia there is a general belief that English is important to economic growth (Euromonitor-International, 2010). Deriving from this belief, globalization and international economic competitiveness are increasingly being cited by governments in the region to justify increased emphasis on the teaching of English as a subject in school systems at ever younger ages and also as a medium of instruction for selected subjects or in selected schools. For example, in South Korea, President Myung-Bak Lee has maintained that “English ability is the competitive power of individuals and states” (Lee, Han, & McKerrow, 2010, p. 337), articulating “a belief that English proficiency would strengthen South Korea’s international competitiveness” (Lee et al., 2010, p. 339). Similarly, in Thailand, the then Minister of Education emphasized the importance of English as a tool for

70

international communication within the country’s 2nd Education Reform project (MOE, 2010a). Yet there is also a recognition that investments in education, and English teaching specifically, are not necessarily having the impact that education authorities expect. Complaints from policy makers about how little change occurs in classroom practice in response to the accelerated pace of technological, economic, and social change from the late 20th century into the 21st century are common in many education systems, and not just for English teaching (Stronkhorst & Van den Akker, 2006). Student outcomes are also routinely criticized. For example, in South Korea “The emphasis on English language education reform in Korea’s globalization policy was motivated by concerns about Korean students’ lack of competence in speaking and understanding English” (Yim, 2007, p. 39) and in Malaysia, the president of the Malaysian English Language Teaching Association recently wrote in a newspaper article that “in spite of 11 years of formal English language education, a vast majority of Malaysian students leave school without being able to speak or write in English with any significant degree of fluency” (Subramanian, 2012). If outcomes are so poor, what effect does this have on economic development? Historically, from 1971 until 2011, South Korea’s average annual GDP growth was 7.4%, whereas from 2000 until 2011, Malaysia’s was 4.5%, averages which compare favorably with that of Japan, the world’s third largest economy, which had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.15% from 1981 to 2011 (source: www.tradingeconomics.com). The same pattern appears in data for Thailand. In the results of the 2010 study of international competitiveness conducted by the International 71

Institute for Management Development (IMD), Thailand ranked 6th (out of 59 countries) for economic performance but for education as a whole the ranking was 47th and for English proficiency, in particular, 54th (MOE, 2010b). Despite the fact that GDP growth rates remain high, calling into question any causal link between proficiency in English and economic development, governments continue to bemoan poor English language performance in schools and lack of progress in raising standards. An argument is often made that ‘poor’ school performance by students is the result of ‘poor’ teaching (however this is characterized) or the failure of teachers to implement curriculum reforms as mandated by central education authorities. Punthumasen (2007) notes for Thailand that English teaching suffers from problems of subject matter inappropriate to students’ needs and interests, lack of a supportive environment for language learning, inadequate and poor quality print resources, and inadequate technological support, particularly in rural areas, as well as teaching methods which fail to engage students but maintains that “as teachers play the most significant role to develop the English language knowledge and skills of the children, the qualifications of teachers and effective teaching methods are very important to improve the quality of students’ English language learning” (Punthumasen, 2007, p. 4). Although it is heartening to see the centrality of the teacher recognized, teachers do not work in isolation from curriculum, materials, and the language environment of the wider society, and a more holistic approach to raising standards would seem to be appropriate.

72

Declining Standards Comparisons

Standards/Raising and International

In their desire for a speedy remedy for a nation’s perceived educational ills, governments are often drawn to imitate the practices of those countries which do well in international comparisons such as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS: see http://www.iea.nl/) or the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA: see http://www.pisa.oecd.org). Finland, which has had significant success in the PISA rankings, received more than 100 delegations from other countries in 2009 (Burridge, 2010) seeking to learn how they could raise achievement levels to be on a par with students in the Finnish education system. What is it that makes the Finnish education system so successful in the PISA rankings? Simola (2005, p. 456) comments that “According to public discussion, it is unequivocally attributable to the excellent Finnish teachers and high-quality Finnish teacher education” yet he also emphasizes the situated nature of any educational system, viewed from a historical perspective. That is, those wishing to learn from Finnish ‘success’ should study how the system developed over time in response to its sociocultural and political context. Consequently, as we now turn to examine dimensions of teaching and teacher education and attempt to characterize aspects of effective practice, we must bear in mind that the evidence in the literature relates to specific contexts. Effective practice in one context may not be effective in another

73

without adaptation to its differing sociocultural and educational characteristics. Some of the literature reviewed here discusses English language teacher education specifically, whereas some refers to teacher education more generally, but, by extension, may be considered relevant to English language teaching. The discussion is concerned with teachers whose first language is not English—so-called ‘non-native’ English speakers (NNES)— who work within their own state education systems. These constitute the vast majority of English language teachers worldwide. The chapter is not concerned with peripatetic native-speaking English (NES) teachers who may have very different teacher education needs. A number of the dimensions of teaching and teacher education that we discuss in the next section are traditional concerns of the discipline while those discussed in the succeeding section, “Other dimensions of international comparison”, rarely, if ever, feature in it.

Dimensions of Effective Teacher Education and Teacher Learning The organizing framework for this section derives from Freeman’s (2002) review of English language teacher education. Freeman (2002, p. 1) argues that “teacher learning is the core activity of teacher education and therefore that any improvements in the professional preparation of teachers, including those who teach English and other second languages, need to be informed by this research.” From his own review of the research he concludes with three central

74

observations which have implications for the theory and practice of language teacher preparation: • The aim of teacher education must be to understand experience. • Teacher education will need to organize and support new relationships between new and experienced teachers. • In teacher education, context is everything. (Freeman, 2002, p. 11) We will discuss aspects of these central observations in turn.

Understanding Experience: Teaching Methods and Language Expertise Internationally, educational theory has in recent years seen “a shift from transmission, product-oriented theories to constructivist, process-oriented theories of learning, teaching, and teacher learning” (Crandall, 2000, p. 34). With respect to English language teacher preparation, this has resulted in a reconceptualization of trainee teachers as individuals who have prior experiences of the teaching–learning process rather than as blank slates waiting to be inscribed with the wisdom of their elders. From this perspective, the prior experiences of trainee teachers are used as a starting point for critical investigations of issues such as the roles of teachers in classrooms and schools and the place of teachers in the wider society as well as methodologies. Within this framework, the dangers of new teachers simply teaching as they were themselves taught through an ‘apprenticeship of observation,’ in Lortie’s (1975) classic formulation, are counteracted. (Even where the apprenticeship experiences are considered 75

positive, critical reflection enables teachers-in-preparation to place them within a framework of knowledge about processes of teaching and learning and to assess their validity in current educational theory and practice.) Using the experiences of trainee teachers as a basis for critical investigation of practice does not mean that formal input from experienced teacher educators is abandoned but that its role is also reconceptualized. As Freeman (2002, p. 11) comments: “The role of external input—of theory, prescriptions, and the experiences of others—lies in how these can help the individual teacher to articulate her experience and thus make sense of her work.” Another result of this reconceptualization is that the traditional language teaching methods course, “a course which presents the theoretical rationale and practical implications of language teaching approaches, methods, procedures and techniques” (Crandall, 2000, p. 37), becomes an opportunity to explore a range of options which might be possible in particular circumstances—methods as a response to contexts—rather than being seen in prescriptivist terms of adherence to a single, officially-mandated methodology. Yet experience indicates that practice is lagging behind this theoretical reconceptualization of trainee teachers and that method courses remain prescriptivist, rather than being an exploration of options. In many countries the only major change in English language teacher education seems to have been that Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) ideology and, more recently, the associated Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) have replaced structuralist and/or grammar–translation orientations as officially prescribed teaching methods (Littlewood, 2007). This change has given rise to problems as a CLT curriculum emphasizes “the 76

exclusive use of communication tasks in the classroom” (Ur, 2012, p. 94), requiring a level of language expertise which may be misaligned with teachers’ actual language competence. Yim (2007, p. 39) notes for South Korea that: Most English teachers have been educated in Korean universities, where the English curriculum emphasizes translation skills and the study of English and American literature. Therefore, it is not surprising that they lack oral and aural skills. This lack of oral/aural proficiency in English amongst teachers is not uncommon. With constraints such as limited instructional time in crowded curricula and lack of exposure to the language outside of the classroom, it is not surprising that studies over a number of years have tended to indicate that the achievement of native or near-native competence in English is not a realistic goal for many NNES teachers (nor their students) in contexts where English is a foreign rather than a second language (see, e.g., Hayes, 2010b). How significant is this? Drawing parallels with other subjects, we would not expect a secondary school teacher of physics (proficient but not an expert in the subject) to have the same level of knowledge as a university professor (for whom the highest level of expertise is expected). The question then arises for language teachers, just how proficient do they need to be in the language in order to teach it? A great deal of emphasis is often placed on teachers of English modelling themselves on American or British English NES. However, most communication in English is by non-native speakers with other NNES, rather than with NES, which calls into question 77

the need to look to Western varieties as models for NNES teachers. Scholars such as Kirkpatrick (2007, p. 186) have argued that a focus on native speaker models “undermines the value of multilingual local teachers” and that “a lingua franca approach based on the goal of successful cross-cultural communication could be advantageous to both teachers and students” (p. 193). Thus, rather than emphasizing the unrealistic attainment of near-native speaker status as a goal for teachers in EFL situations, it might be more productive to focus on a model which reflects the realities of cross-cultural communication amongst NNES. Such a focus could then contribute to making language improvement in teacher education programs, which trainee teachers themselves often see as much a priority as the development of pedagogical skills (Cullen, 2002), more achievable. Further, recent government mandates in a number of countries such as the Korean government’s policy urging teachers to teach English in English—the ‘TEE’ policy—which is supposedly designed to help increase students’ exposure to English, have tended to complicate the issue. In the monolingual classes which are the norm in government schools in Korea it makes little sense to deny teachers the use of a common first language to help students to understand the foreign language. In practice, as studies such as Kang’s (2008) show, teachers in Korean classrooms tend to use both languages for various pedagogical purposes, with the needs of the students uppermost in their minds. Kang (2008, p. 224) advises that teachers “would do the students much good by judiciously using L1 and TL [target language] for the purposes of maintaining classroom discipline and enhancing student comprehension, both of which could contribute to continued student interest.” 78

Practice Teaching: The Roles of New and Experienced Teachers and Teacher Evaluation Clearly, if trainee teachers are to develop the capacity to explore methodological options rather than follow a single prescribed approach, they need to have ample opportunities to practice their craft in classrooms with sufficient freedom to experiment. In one form or another a practicum is a constant in most initial-teacher training courses. Typically, the practicum is a formal one semester (or term) enterprise with periodic visits from college or university staff. Roberts (1998) suggests that a gradual progression to full responsibility for a class rather than adopting a ‘sink or swim’ approach is optimal, with trainee teachers moving from observation of experienced teachers to teaching parts of a lesson to the assumption of full responsibility for a class, “optimising the genuineness of experiences at each stage” (p. 135). This kind of progression enables new teachers to learn from the ‘wisdom of practice.’ Given that university-based teacher educators are rarely able to make more than occasional visits to partner schools they cannot provide the effective support trainee teachers require. Thus, the onus is on more experienced teachers in the partner schools to act as mentors, providing the trainee with guidance on a daily basis. An acknowledgment of the importance of mentors requires a concomitant recognition that teacher education in the modern world is no longer the preserve of the university-based teacher educator. The day-to-day interaction between new and experienced teachers in schools as they discuss their classroom experiences is a crucial factor in teacher development, equal in importance to the experience of

79

university-based courses. Moreover, even when teacher educators do visit their trainee teachers in schools, they tend to act in a supervisory rather than a mentoring capacity. This contrast is highlighted by Malderez (2008, p. 2) who sees a mentoring role as being supportive of the transformation or development of the mentee and of their acceptance into a professional community. A supervisory process, on the other hand, is seen as more concerned with the maintenance of standards within an organization or system. This is not to deny the need for some form of evaluation performing a gatekeeping function, allowing into the teaching profession only those who have demonstrated their competence in the core functions of teaching. However, any system of evaluation must be founded on agreed criteria against which the performance of trainee teachers can be measured. As Arends (2006, p. 17) succinctly puts it, “Effective teacher assessment is dependent upon a knowledge base and clear definitions of what constitutes effective teaching.” Further, there must be clear statements regarding how these definitions of effective teaching are to be evaluated—the process of evaluation—with precise articulation of the standards against which teachers’ performance is to be evaluated. Without this clarity the system will lack validity in the eyes of those who are being evaluated. Yet, surprisingly, the validity of evaluation instruments and procedures amongst those who are to be evaluated by them is not often considered by the designers and implementers of teacher evaluation systems (Peterson & Comeaux, 1990). Equally surprising is that there is little agreement as to what constitutes effective teaching. Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, and Robinson (2003, p. 351) note that in the past the “operational definition of 80

effectiveness [has] usually [been] restricted to the teacher’s classroom instructional behaviour and its association with cognitive outcomes,” in spite of the fact that the complexities of teaching itself in and beyond the classroom have long been recognized. And, with particular respect to English language teaching, newer methodologies such as CLT and the associated TBLT have been seen to require fundamental changes to teachers’ traditional patterns of classroom behavior (Vanci-Osam & Aksit, 2000) which have not always been reflected in evaluation instruments. It is unlikely that any single measure will provide a valid and reliable indicator of teacher effectiveness: Differentiated models of teaching effectiveness inevitably imply differentiated models of teacher evaluation. However, typical models of teacher evaluation worldwide still tend to concentrate on instructional behavior assessed through classroom observation of a teacher’s performance. There is no sense of the teacher as an educator in a school system responsible for other aspects of education such as “moral and social value formation” (Campbell et al., 2003, p. 351), which experienced teachers sometimes see as being just as important to their professional selves as their teaching of English as a subject (Hayes, 2010a). To conclude this section, research indicates that, whatever method of evaluation is chosen, a key element that needs to be considered in the system is the potential benefits it brings to the individual trainee teacher. Middlewood and Cardno (2001, p. 11) claim that within evaluation “the most important appraisal activity is interpersonal and not technical. When technical purposes overtake the improvement purposes we find that the appraisal processes may be honed down to become just a mechanism for check-listing that minimum 81

criteria have been met.” It is doubtful that check-listing of this kind would do much to raise standards in the way that governments so earnestly desire.

The Contextual and Cultural Appropriateness of Teacher Education Policy and Practice English language teacher education literature largely restricts its focus to theories of language, SLA, and, especially, pedagogy, failing to take into account teacher learning within social contexts. Conformity to NES conceptions of an idealized pedagogy also underscores much of this literature, even where it concedes the importance of the language teaching and learning situation in influencing choices about methods (Harmer, 2001; Hedge, 2000). Since Freeman and Johnson (1998, p. 406) argued for the knowledge base of teacher education in TESOL to comprise three domains— “the teacher-learner, the social context, and the pedagogical process”—the pedagogical process has continued to receive disproportionate attention. Teacher-learning may be a burgeoning field as Freeman (2002) indicates but investigation of the social context has been much less explored (see, e.g., Hayes, 2009; Hayes, 2010a, 2010b). English language teacher education literature as a consequence often seems disengaged from the wider educational enterprise in which most of its practitioners work (Johnson, 1996), and there is a compelling argument for investigation into the myriad contexts in which English language teaching takes place in order to inform more locally appropriate teacher education courses to counterbalance the uniformity in the literature as to how teachers should be prepared and how they should teach.

82

Thus, any conclusions about what may be ‘best practice’ in language teacher education from the foregoing discussion need to be framed according to the constraints and opportunities of the context(s) in which the system of teacher education is to be implemented as well as an understanding of the sociocultural and historical context of the system from which the practices derive. As we have noted earlier, in his discussion of “the Finnish miracle of PISA” Simola (2005, p. 456) sees Finnish achievement as being the result of a whole complex of factors such as “students’ own areas of interest and leisure activities, the learning opportunities provided by schools, parental support and involvement as well as social and cultural contexts of learning and of the entire education system,” all viewed in sociological and historical perspective. In stark contrast to this situated understanding of educational achievement, Walker and Dimmock (2000, p. 157) note that “There appears to be a naïve belief among many policymakers and practitioners that policies and practices designed in one context can be unproblematically transported elsewhere.” The experience of teachers in some non-Western contexts with the implementation of CLT indicates that this kind of transportation is, indeed, often problematic (Littlewood, 2007).

Other Dimensions of International Comparison Having examined dimensions of English language teaching and teacher education which are commonly discussed in the literature, we now turn to a brief discussion of two

83

dimensions of international comparison which rarely, if ever, figure in our professional discourse but which, we argue, deserve equal attention with the more traditional dimensions. These are the status of teaching and social and educational equality.

The Status of Teaching The status of teaching as a profession within a society has a major impact on the educational quality of entrants to teacher preparation programs. Is teaching considered to be on a par with other high status professions such as engineering, medicine or law? To return to the example of the PISA high-achiever, Finland, it soon becomes apparent that teaching is indeed of high status. According to Sahlberg (2007, p. 154) in a recent poll “over 26% of general upper secondary school graduates rated the teaching profession as the most desirable” and “Classroom teaching is considered to be an independent, high-status profession that attracts some of the best secondary school graduates.” Reflecting this status, “only about 10% of some 5,000 applicants are accepted annually to the Faculties of Education within Finnish universities” (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 154). Further, the training program itself is academically rigorous with a master’s degree in education the basic requirement for permanent posts in Finnish schools. The Finnish experience is in contrast to many other economically developed countries where teaching is no longer as highly valued as it was in the past (Simola, 2005). For instance, a report on teacher status in the United Kingdom (Hargreaves et al., 2007, pp. 31–32) spoke of “teachers’ and others’ perceptions of a steep and steady decline in teacher status

84

from the late 1960s to a low point in 1997, then a less steep decline to 2003. Given a landmark date in each decade since 1967, teachers, trainee teachers, teaching assistants, parents, and governors alike perceived this decline in teacher status.” Interestingly, this report makes reference to the Finnish requirement for teachers to have master’s degrees, noting that “Although internationally evidence for status gains associated with higher levels of qualifications is mixed, one clear example is Finland, where the status of teachers and education in general, has risen dramatically in recent years alongside the requirement that all teachers are qualified at masters’ level’’ (Hargreaves et al., 2007, p. 83). Other recent studies elsewhere have reported that teaching is an occupation most likely to be favored by secondary school students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In Asia, for example, Lai, Chan, Ko, and So (2005, p. 165) concluded for contemporary Hong Kong that: In terms of students’ socio-economic background, there was a significant difference in the students’ interest to join teaching with respect to their average monthly household incomes and parents’ education levels. This suggests that teaching was less attractive to students from relatively well-off and educated families. In Finland, teaching is not associated with particular socioeconomic backgrounds and student-teachers are recruited from across the whole spectrum of society. Once in the profession, teachers “identify with the upper social strata” (Simola 2005, p. 459). But it is important to note that making teaching attractive as a profession to high achievers in secondary schools is not something that can be achieved 85

overnight: it is a long-term process dependent on a multiplicity of factors, including the attitudes towards professionalism of teachers themselves. The high status of teaching in Finland is in part the result of a long struggle for professionalism on the part of teachers themselves beginning as early as 1890 when Finnish primary school teachers insisted that their training should take place in universities and was consolidated throughout the 20th century. Do perceptions of the low status of teaching in many countries matter? There is evidence to suggest that it does. Hargreaves et al. (2007, p. 16) note “OECD’s twenty-five country survey on teacher recruitment and retention identified the need to improve the ‘status and labour market competitiveness’ of the teaching profession as the first priority in its first level of policy implications (OECD, 2005a, p. 10).” This is not just a question of teacher salaries, as other research (UNESCO, 2006, p. 9) indicates that “heavy workload, large class size and lack of opportunities for advancement are also major areas of dissatisfaction and disincentive for choosing teaching as a career” in a number of Asian countries, including Thailand where the teaching force contracted by 3.9% during 2000–2004. Set against this context, policy prescriptions in many Asian countries that teachers should be trained to adopt particular approaches such as CLT or to teach English only through English are unlikely to have the impact that ministries of education desire as they fail to address either teachers’ working conditions or their sense of being a highly valued professional group within society, both of which ultimately impact on the quality of the teaching force (OECD, 2005a).

86

Social and Educational Equality An additional dimension affecting student outcomes which does not figure in discussions of English language teaching and teacher education internationally is what the students themselves bring to the classroom. As we indicated earlier, teachers by themselves, no matter how well-trained or highly skilled, cannot solve all the perceived problems of a school system even though governments routinely focus on the teacher’s performance as the primary source of student ‘failure.’ Not only are school factors such as the subject matter, the environment for language learning, the quality of print resources, and technological support important, but so too are non-school factors which teachers cannot influence. It is an established fact that students in some schools are more likely to fail than others because of their socioeconomic background. As the OECD (2005b, p. 2) puts it: The first and most solidly based finding [from research on student learning] is that the largest source of variation in student learning is attributable to differences in what students bring to school—their abilities and attitudes, and family and community background. This inevitably means that teachers in schools with students drawn from lower socioeconomic groups will have students whose outcomes are, by and large, poorer than those teachers who have students from more affluent backgrounds. In Thailand, a research report on access and inequality in schooling (Lathathipat, 2011) found that:

87

On the surface, while Thailand has succeeded in raising the average amount of schooling among its labour force, the income gap remains high between the parents of college going students and those of their less educated counterparts. This is likely the result of the large disparity in the quality of basic education provided by resource poor versus resource rich schools. Regrettably, the report suggests this is likely to be a self-perpetuating cycle for the majority of students unless equity issues are addressed (Lathathipat, 2011): If this hypothesis is correct, government needs to address the schooling quality issue seriously and provide a more equitable platform to give students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds a level playing field to prepare for a college education. In Korea, too, there has been growing income inequality since the Asian economic crisis of 1997 and “increasing social polarization has called attention to the issue of growing educational inequality in academic achievement among South Korean children” (Byun & Kim, 2010, p. 156). Thus, just as in Thailand, there is inequality in the distribution of learning opportunities amongst various socioeconomic groups. A further outcome is that in societies where there is educational disparity, teachers are drawn towards appointments in the ‘best’ schools, usually those serving more affluent neighborhoods in urban environments, with fewer teachers wishing to work in schools serving less affluent urban areas or rural areas generally as these are perceived to be more difficult and less advantageous to career development. Shifts to market-oriented approaches to education which offer 88

school choice and curriculum differentiation, as in South Korea, will not ameliorate this situation. If governments wish to raise achievement levels it seems that paying more attention to a truly comprehensive education system would reap benefits as international research indicates not only that “countries with the most comprehensive education systems (e.g. the Nordics) have the most equal outcomes” (Byun & Kim, 2010, p. 177) but that more equal societies are more successful educationally (Alexander, 2010).

Conclusion From this discussion we can make a number of suggestions about policies and procedures for effective English language teacher education which, if defined and implemented appropriately according to context, might have a positive influence on English language teaching in schools. These suggestions include, first of all, the need for teacher effectiveness to be contextually defined and measured; second, that universities and colleges need to work in partnership in initial teacher preparation; third, that teacher education should be considered as a lifelong process in order that; fourth, teachers can develop the skills to renew and to avail themselves of a range of methodological options in the classroom rather than just being considered as implementers of methods prescribed by others; and, finally, that teachers’ language expertise should be considered in terms of a model which reflects the realities of cross-cultural communication amongst NNES rather than NES models. However, just as important in improving the quality of teaching and teacher education, we feel, is to consider issues of teacher status as well as teachers’ working conditions and socioeconomic and 89

educational equality across the society as a whole. If teachers are highly valued by society and if their students attend schools which are institutionally equitable, then national aspirations for raising achievement levels in English are more likely to be realized.

References Alexander, R.J. (2010). World class schools: Noble aspiration or globalized hokum? Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40, 801–817. Arends, R.I. (2006). Performance assessment in perspective: History, opportunities and challenges. In S. Castle & B.D. Shaklee (Eds.), Assessing teacher performance: Performance-based assessment in teacher education (pp. 3–22). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Burridge, T. (2010). Why do Finland’s schools get the best results? BBC World News America. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/programmes/world_news_america/8601207.stm Byun, S.-Y., & Kim, K.-Y. (2010). Educational inequality in South Korea: The widening socioeconomic gap in student achievement (Vol. 17—Globalization, Changing Demographics, and Educational Challenges in East Asia): Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Campbell, R.J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R.D., & Robinson, W. (2003). Differential teacher effectiveness: Towards a model for research and development. Oxford Review of Education, 29, 347–362.

90

Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34–55. Cullen, R. (2002). The use of lesson transcripts for developing teachers’ classroom language. In H. Trappes-Lomax & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in language teacher education (pp. 219–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Euromonitor-International. (2010). The benefits of the English language for individuals and societies: Quantitative indicators from Cameroon, Nigeria, Rwanda, Bangladesh and Pakistan. London: Euromonitor International Ltd. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from North American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching.’ Language Teaching, 35, 1–13. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. Hargreaves, L., Cunningham, M., Hansen, A., MacIntyre, D., Oliver, C., & Pell, T. (2007). The status of teachers and the teaching profession in England: Views from inside and outside the profession. Final report of the teacher status project. London: Department for Education and Skills. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Harlow: Longman.

91

Hayes, D. (2009). Non-native English-speaking teachers, context and English language teaching. System, 37, 1–11. Hayes, D. (2010a). “Education is all about opportunities, isn’t it?” A biographical perspective on learning and teaching English in Sri Lanka. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 517–540. Hayes, D. (2010b). Language learning, teaching and educational reform in rural Thailand: An English teacher’s perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 30, 305–319. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Johnson, K. (1996). The role of theory in L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 765–771. Kang, D.-M. (2008). The classroom language use of a Korean elementary EFL teacher: Another look at TETE. System, 36, 214–226. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lai, K.-C., Chan, K.-W., Ko, K.-W., & So, K.-S. (2005). Teaching as a career: A perspective from Hong Kong senior secondary students. Journal of Education for Teaching, 13, 153–168.

92

Lathathipat, D. (2011). Inequality in access to schools. The Nation. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/ Inequality-in-access-to-Schools-30146508.html Lee, J.-H., Han, M.W., & McKerrow, R.E. (2010). English or perish: How contemporary South Korea received, accommodated, and internalized English and American modernity. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10, 337–357. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243–249. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Malderez, A. (2008). Mentoring. Unpublished paper. Middlewood, D., & Cardno, C. (2001). The significance of teacher performance and its appraisal. In D. Middlewood & C. Cardno (Eds.), Managing teacher appraisal and performance: A comparative approach (pp. 1–16). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

MOE. (2010a). 2nd education reform to focus on learners’ quality. Ministry of Education, Bangkok, Thailand. http://www.en.moe.go.th/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99:2nd-education-reform MOE. (2010b). Thailand’s educational competitiveness. Ministry of Education, Bangkok, Thailand.

93

http://www.en.moe.go.th/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:thailands-education OECD. (2005a). Teachers matter: Attracting, retaining and developing effective teachers. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD. (2005b). Teachers matter: Attracting, retaining and developing effective teachers, overview. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Peterson, P.L., & Comeaux, M.A. (1990). Evaluating the systems: Teachers’ perspectives on teacher evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 3–24. Punthumasen, P. (2007). International program for teacher education: An approach to tackling problems of English education in Thailand. Paper presented at the 11th UNESCO-APEID Conference, Bangkok, Thailand. http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/apeid/ Conference/11thConference/papers/ 3C3_Pattanida_Punthumasen.pdf Roberts, J. (1998). Language teacher education. London: Arnold. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: the Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22, 147–171. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41, 455–470.

94

Stronkhorst, R., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Effects of in-service education on improving science teaching in Swaziland. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1771–1794. Subramanian, G. (2012). Get local experts to fix English woes. The Star Online. http://thestar.com.my/education/ story.asp?file=/2012/1/8/education/10193552&sec=education UNESCO. (2006). Report on the Asia regional seminar on the status of teachers: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Bangkok, Thailand, 1–3 August 2006. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/ user_upload/apeid/workshops/Status_of_teachers.pdf Ur, P. (2012). Grammar teaching: Theory, practice and English teacher education. In J. Hüttner, B. Mehlmauer-Larcher, S. Reichl, & B. Schiftner (Eds.), Theory and practice in EFL teacher education (pp. 83–100). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Vanci-Osam, U., & Aksit, T. (2000). Do intentions and perceptions always meet? A case study regarding the use of a teacher appraisal scheme in an English language teaching environment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 255–267. Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (2000). One size fits all? Teacher appraisal in a Chinese culture. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 155–178. Yim, S. (2007). Globalization and language policy in South Korea. In A.B.M. Tsui & J.W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language 95

policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 37–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

96

2 Developing Teacher Candidates’ Target Language Proficiency Challenges and Opportunities in a Supportive Institutional and Policy Environment Antoinette Gagné and Marlon Valencia The purpose of this chapter is to share some of the experiences and challenges encountered by a group of second language teacher educators to support the French language proficiency development of future French-asa-second language (FSL) teachers in a context where most teacher candidates (TCs) speak French as an additional language (Bayliss & Vignola, 2000; Lapkin, MacFarlane, Vandergrift, & Hart, 2006) and within the framework of a fairly new teacher education program. French language proficiency development is one of several expectations of this 5-year teacher education program and an important aspect of the knowledge base of second language teachers, which is central to TCs’ professional preparation (K. Johnson, 2009; Kamhi-Stein, 2009). The experiences and challenges presented are discussed in relation to national and provincial language policies and their influence on second language teacher education (SLTE) programming at Southern Ontario

97

University1 (SOU), a large urban university in Ontario, Canada.

Language Policy in Canada: Official Bilingualism Within a Multi-Cultural Context Language policies act as a major mechanism used implicitly or explicitly to manipulate and impose language behaviors through “deliberate although not always overt” (emphasis in original, Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, p. 3) decisions on the role of languages in education and society (Shohamy, 2006). In the Canadian context, where there is a commitment to official bilingualism, learning/teaching French and English as additional languages is a national priority (OCOL, 2010, p. 3) which plays a substantial role in the federal government’s language planning efforts to enhance the sense of belonging of minority French speakers and majority English speakers to a unified bilingual nation-state (Cardinal, 2004; Hayday, 2005). Such language policy efforts started as the federal government’s response to the social and political pressures triggered by French Canadians’ dissatisfaction with their limited participation in the decision-making processes of the province of Québec, as well as their desire to have an active presence in the federal government in the 1960s. These political struggles of French Canadians, known as the ‘Quiet Revolution,’ and the resistance opposed by the dominant English-speaking class, resulted in ‘a crisis of national unity’ (Burnaby, 2008;

98

Hayday, 2005). Consequently, the federal government created the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism from 1963 to 1971, in order to promote respect and support for English and French among all Canadians (Burnaby, 2008). As a result, English and French were made the official languages of Canada through the official Languages Act of 1969, and both languages were given equal status, equal rights, and equal privileges in the Parliament and the federal government (Burnaby, 2008; Cardinal, 2004). This policy was followed by a language-in-education policy called the official Languages in Education (OLE) Program in 1970–1971, which offered funding for provincially regulated education reforms that facilitated the provision of English education for minority English speakers in Québec, French education for francophones across Canada, and a strengthening of second official language instruction (Burnaby, 2008). In addition to the development of these policies, on October 8, 1971, Prime Minister Trudeau, responding to the pressures of the Ukrainian community, passed the policy of “multiculturalism within a bilingual framework under which there are two official languages but no official culture and no ethnic group takes precedence over any other” (Cummins & Danesi, 1990, p. 23). Hence, the preservation of other minority languages such as indigenous and immigrant languages was brought to the forefront; however, these minority languages were not given a status similar to that of English and French at the federal level and thus lacked the support given to the two official languages (Cummins & Danesi, 1990).

99

The Ontario Context Although English remains the dominant language of Ontario, Canada’s most populated province, there are some regions such as Ottawa and northern Ontario where there is a large French-speaking population. In addition, there are minority French-language schools and communities across the province. In urban centers like Toronto, the number of multi-lingual citizens is increasing because of the steady flow of immigrants to cities (e.g., Statistics Canada, 2009).

Language-In-Education Policy: French-as-a-Second Language Programs in Elementary and Secondary Schools Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) define language-in-education planning “as part of human resource development planning” (p. 125), which in the case of Canada, involves the production of citizens who are respectful, understanding, and potentially proficient in two official languages which serve as unifying elements of the Canadian nation-state (Hayday, 2005). Moreover, language-in-education planning also involves the development of several interrelated stages, and two of these of particular interest to this article are: (1) curriculum policy, and (2) personnel policy (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; see also Naqvi & Coburn, 2008).

Curriculum Policy On the one hand, curriculum policy defines what will be taught and how it will be taught in terms of number of hours 100

and organization within the school curriculum. In Ontario, FSL is a required subject from Grades 4 to 9 in English-language schools (MoE, 1998, 1999). Students have various options for learning FSL in elementary and secondary schools. These include: • French immersion—an FSL program in which French is taught both as a subject and as a medium of instruction for at least 50% of the student timetable. Immersion programs can be full (100% or close to full-time in French) or partial (approximately 50% in French). Entry to these programs can be “early” (around Kindergarten or Grade 1), “mid” (around Grade 4), or “late” (around Grade 7). Immersion programs vary in their proportion of courses provided in French and in their entry points. • Core French—an FSL program in which French is taught as a subject, for approximately three hours per week in elementary and secondary schools. • Extended French—an FSL program in which French is taught as a subject and used as a medium of instruction for a number of courses. Extended French programs have a smaller percentage of scheduling time in French than immersion programs.

Personnel Policy: A Call for Quality FSL Teachers On the other hand, personnel policy is directly related to the cadre of qualified teachers available to teach, in this case FSL. In Ontario and in Canada, various government documents underline the ongoing need for effective FSL

101

programming in elementary and secondary schools, qualified FSL teachers at all levels, as well as high quality language teacher education. In particular Plan 2013 aimed to double the number of bilingual graduates by 2013. However, due to a lack of funding, Plan 2013 projects were delayed (OCOL, 2010, p. 13). As a result, calls for quality French teaching by trained professionals can still be heard and the shortage of FSL teachers in Canada continues (MacFarlane & Hart, 2002; OCT, 2010), highlighting the importance of working towards the continued renewal of FSL teacher education. Moreover, the growing need for qualified FSL teachers has made French teacher certification an interesting qualification for TCs due to the possibilities for employment that it represents (see OCT, 2010).

French Language Proficiency and Communicative Language Teaching In order for teachers to use contemporary approaches to second language teaching with confidence and competence, their French proficiency needs to be well developed. The communicative approach to teaching second languages (see Canale & Swain, 1980; J.C. Richards & Schmidt, 2010) in contrast to traditional, grammar-based methods, stresses the importance of language use by teachers and students. A number of researchers have pointed to the need to define the level of language proficiency required to teach communicatively (Canale & Swain, 1980). Although the language proficiency required of teachers remains hard to pin down, Walker and Tedick assert that “with the advent of the proficiency movement, new directions in second language

102

pedagogy, and the changing needs of a global society, second language educators need a broader preparation than in the past” (Walker & Tedick, 1994, p. 30). In addition, the FSL Ontario curriculum policies suggest that teachers should use French to teach it (MoE, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). Therefore, Ontario faculties of education need to prepare FSL teachers with a high level of proficiency in French.

Language Proficiency Development of Teachers The proficiency of language teachers, that is, how skilfully they use language (J.C. Richards & Schmidt, 2010), remains among researchers’ and educators’ central concerns in second language teacher education (Bayliss & Vignola, 2000, 2007; Ullmann & Hainsworth, 1991). Moreover, for language teachers to be effective, they must reach a proficiency threshold that allows them to use the language to carry out basic tasks in the classroom and depend less on teaching resources (see J. C. Richards, 2011). Therefore, there is a growing interest in understanding proficiency development initiatives involving undergraduate students studying an international language (e.g., Paesani, 2006; L. Pearson, Fonseca-Greber, & Foell, 2006) and FSL teachers in Ontario (e.g., Salvatori, 2007; Salvatori & MacFarlane, 2009) as it is considered central to the second language education knowledge base in a 5-year program where undergraduate studies and teacher preparation are combined. Language teacher educators in Canada and elsewhere have been and continue to be preoccupied with the proficiency

103

development of their future teachers of French (Boutin, Chinien, & Boutin, 1999, p. 23; Erben, 2004; Fraga-Cañadas, 2010, p. 409). Most FSL teacher education programs in Canada assess competence in French. In some cases this occurs prior to entry with a passing grade on a proficiency test, and in other instances, proficiency is measured during the program, or as an exit requirement (Boutin et al., 1999, p. 23).

Activity Theory In the previous sections we have described some of the language and education policies in Canada at the federal and provincial levels, and attempted to show their influence on teacher education programming and teacher candidates’ growing interest in becoming FSL teachers; however, such a linear view provides only a limited account of the myriad of elements that mediate (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011) the development of TCs’ French language proficiency within the social context in which SLTE takes place. Therefore, in understanding the complexity of the context, we use an activity theory lens in which language and education policies are understood as one factor among several mediating factors. Activity theory in teacher education research brings into consideration multiple interacting factors,

104

Figure 2.1 Action system for teacher candidates’ FSL proficiency development in Southern Ontario University’s SLTE program. such as “educational policies and guidance at school, [policies at] local and national levels, teachers’, schools’ and societies’ beliefs…” (S. Pearson, 2009, p. 251) that exert an influence in TCs’ professional development. Equally important, activity theory provides a dialogic framework in which an individual’s or a group’s (in the case of TCs) actions to satisfy their needs both mediate and are socially mediated within a social context (Swain et al., 2011). Figure 2.1 above illustrates some of the constituent elements that play an important role in mediating TCs’ FSL proficiency development at SOU. Accordingly, TCs are the agents or 105

subjects who aim to develop their FSL proficiency (goal), so they can become FSL teachers (outcome). In addition, the main meditational means or tool in this case is SOU’s SLTE program, which includes courses and multiple activities aimed at developing TCs’ target language proficiency. Other important elements are the national and local language and education policies, which have a direct impact on education, SLTE, and the job market. Furthermore, TCs are active members of various communities in their SLTE program, as well as of the larger communities. Last, the division of labor in this context is characterized by the SLTE program’s role in facilitating TCs’ development of language proficiency and assessment, whereas TCs must take advantage of these multiple opportunities, take language proficiency tests and eventually pass them as part of their process of reaching their goal and outcome (Engeström, 2000; S. Pearson, 2009; Swain et al., 2011).

The Study This chapter includes some of the findings of an ongoing study related to TCs’ learning and professional experiences as future language teachers in Southern Ontario University’s Concurrent Teacher Education Program (CTEP). In this chapter, we present some of the challenges, questions, curriculum initiatives, research, and collaborative work that have resulted from a shared concern to support TCs’ development of French language proficiency.

106

Methodology Due to the nature of the case study approach, the findings presented here reflect situations particularly related to the context in which data were collected (D.M. Johnson, 1992; K. Richards, 2003); however, we expect this chapter to contribute to burgeoning literature on developing TCs’ competence to teach in second language teacher education (J.C. Richards, 2011). Moreover, we want to provide an account of the challenges that SLTE programs face to help TCs target language proficiency in a context where language policy and allocation of resources privilege the teaching of the target language, a situation that may be uncommon in several other contexts. Furthermore, research on the impact of language policies on second language teacher education has traditionally focused on teacher’s roles in enacting, adapting, or resisting policies, as well as on advocating for a systematic inclusion of language policy as part of the knowledge base of SLTE (Hiramatsu, 2005; Reeder, Hasebe-Ludt, & Thomas, 1997; Varghese & Stritikus, 2005). Therefore, the present study highlights how one SLTE program has responded to language policy reform by adapting to policy requirements (Naqvi & Coburn, 2008). Data were collected through field notes taken in class observations, and curriculum and instructional team meetings, as well as French stake-holder meetings at SOU. Semi-structured and informal interviews with teacher educators were also conducted. The last part of data collection involved the analysis of program enrollment statistics, French proficiency tests, teacher candidates’ feedback forms,

107

language portfolios, online teacher candidate support, annual reports, applicant profiles, and web university archives.

Research Context Southern Ontario University (SOU) has an interdisciplinary and collaborative concurrent teacher education program (CTEP) which allows graduating high school students and first-year undergraduate students to earn two degrees simultaneously throughout the course of 5 years. Thus, CTEP graduates complete the requirements for a discipline-based honors bachelor degree, which provides them with in-depth knowledge in their future teaching areas, while they develop the practical skills needed to apply that knowledge in their teaching practice through a bachelor degree in education. CTEP students (henceforth we will use the terms students and TCs interchangeably) choose from different options offered at SOU. Therefore, students can obtain an Honors Bachelor of Arts or Honors Bachelor of Sciences degrees (HBA and HBSc), as well as a Bachelor of Physical Education degree (BPHE), or a Bachelor of Music degree (BMus). In addition, TCs can also opt to become generalist Primary/Junior (P/J; Kindergarten to Grade 6) teachers or specialist Intermediate/ Senior teachers (Grades 7 to 12) in two subjects, which may include FSL (e.g., history and FSL), provided that they receive special language teacher education (Salvatori, 2009). The TCs enrolled in the French strand of the program at SOU range in age from 18 to 24. They are a very diverse group of students that reflects the linguistic, racial, ethnic, and religious diversity of the greater metropolitan Toronto area. After more than two decades, Toronto continues to be the

108

destination of choice for more than half of the 250,000 immigrants who arrive in Canada each year (HRSDC, 2006; Statistics Canada, 2010). A sizeable number of the students at SOU are immigrants themselves or are the children of immigrants. Many SOU students are multi-lingual, as they speak a home language other than English or French. French, for most, is a language they have learned at school. Very few of the students have French as their home language, which is reflective of the demographics of this part of Ontario.

Findings and Discussion The Origins of the FSL Strand of the Program In response to Canadian language policies SOU has prepared French and international language teachers for several decades within the framework of 1-year post-graduate education programs. It is only recently that a 5-year teacher education program for future French teachers was launched. This longer program, integrating the study of French and education, grew from the fact that a substantial number of SOU graduates with a French minor or major pursued the 1-year post-graduate degree to become French teachers in Ontario. Since the early ‘90s, approximately 30% of the applicants to the year-long certificate program have not succeeded in passing the French proficiency test required for admission. As a result, the instigators of the new integrated program hoped that working with TCs in an intentional manner over a 5-year period would result in higher levels of proficiency and better preparation as language teachers overall. 109

The longer program was also developed in response to the declining number of applicants to the 1-year post-graduate program, which coincided with the continued shortage of French teachers and the Canadian government’s directive to double the number of bilingual graduates by 2013. There was a great deal of excitement among those involved because of the possibility of admitting up to 60 students in the French teacher preparation program each year and the growth of a critical mass—up to 300 French TCs—over the 5 years of the program.

The Applicant Pool Until 2002, it generally took 5 years to complete high school in Ontario. When the secondary school curriculum was compacted into 4 years, an increasing number of students opted to discontinue their study of French after Grade 9, which is the final grade when it is mandated in the Ontario curriculum. This curriculum change had a direct impact on the potential pool of applicants for the French strand of the concurrent teacher education program at SOU because fewer than 10% of high school graduates opted to study French until their final year of high school (CPFO, 2008; MoE, 2008). The completion of Grade 12 French was considered an important prerequisite for admission to the integrated teacher education program. The applicants to the French strand of the concurrent teacher education program at SOU are, for the most part, graduates of Core French programs in Ontario high school, as fewer than 5% of Ontario students graduate from Extended or Immersion French programs. In

110

addition, in 2011–2012 there were only 154 secondary schools offering French immersion and 117 with extended French in Ontario (CPFO, 2011).

The Evolution of the Admissions Criteria As the 5-year program at SOU was new, admissions criteria used in other undergraduate programs were adapted such that applicants were required to complete an experience profile and have grades in the 80s in their Grade 12 courses. Each year, the admissions criteria have been refined to ensure the success of those admitted to the French language teacher education program. A question to which applicants must respond in French was added and responses are evaluated by instructors in the French strand of the program. A grade in the 80s specifically in the Grade 12 French course was considered as important as a high Grade 12 average. The type of Grade 12 French course was also examined as a way to differentiate between applicants recognizing that a strong grade in an Immersion or Extended French course would likely be a better predictor for success in the program than a strong grade in Core French. Finally, an interview in French for applicants is also being piloted as a way of determining whether an applicant possesses sufficient proficiency in French as a starting point to build on over 5 years. SOU registrars have come to understand that the Grade 12 French course grades vary so much from school to school that an interview may be the only way to determine an applicant’s actual proficiency. In interviews with TCs currently enrolled in the French strand, we discovered that several had been taught French through the medium of English in elementary

111

and secondary school because of the chronic shortage of French teachers over the last two decades in Ontario. There are plans in place to use a placement test as part of the admissions process to determine if an applicant would qualify to take language courses at a sufficiently high level to complete the French course sequence considered necessary to develop French proficiency for teaching by the end of the program cycle.

Outreach to Secondary Schools As there is still a need for French teachers who are sufficiently confident and proficient in French to teach in an engaging and interactive way, SOU is attempting to attract graduates from French minority high schools as well as Immersion and Extended French secondary school programs or International Baccalaureate programs to its 5-year concurrent teacher education program. Although SOU has continued to foreground this program in publications and outreach activities at university fairs and via the guidance office in secondary schools, it is now exploring more targeted strategies to reach the graduates of secondary schools programs where French plays a more prominent role in the curriculum. The hope is that students who graduate from such high school programs will bring a stronger foundational knowledge of French on which to build over 5 years at SOU.

112

French Proficiency Development Opportunities in the 5-year Program TCs are expected to complete the requirements of an undergraduate degree with a specialization in French as well as education courses and field placements related to teaching French. In addition, university policies and practices as well as Ontario College of Teachers accreditation requirements must be taken into account. SOU’s undergraduate French specialist program makes a distinction between French language courses and other courses focusing on literature, culture, or linguistics. Students can only take the latter courses once they have reached a high intermediate level of French proficiency. In addition, only a limited number of language courses can go towards meeting the program requirements. This policy has significantly impacted the French proficiency development of the struggling SOU TCs because, rather than being able to immerse themselves in French by taking a range of courses, they are limited to enrolling in one French language course each semester until they meet the level of French required to take other types of courses. In the literature, culture, and linguistics courses, the learning of specific content is weighted much more heavily than proficiency development, which is usually simply one of several components in the rubrics used to evaluate course assignments. In addition, because several different international languages are taught within the same department, there are some courses with a French course code that are taught through the medium of English to

113

accommodate students majoring in different languages. One example is a course focused on the use of technology in language learning where the lectures are in English and the assignments are submitted in French, Italian, or Spanish. As there is no “study elsewhere” requirement in the French specialist degree, the majority of the mainly middle and upper middle-class student body at SOU completes their specialist degree without leaving Ontario. However, more recently, opportunities for international study and internships as well as funding for such activities have been promoted. Until the establishment of the 5-year program, there was little communication between instructors and administrators in the French language and literature department and the faculty of education, resulting in little understanding of program characteristics and requirements. In the early years of the more integrated program, each unit continued to function quite independently. The expectation of the faculty of education was that the undergraduate French department would ensure the development of sufficient proficiency for teaching French whereas the French department relied on the faculty of education to determine whether TCs had progressed sufficiently in their French proficiency to graduate and be confident and effective teachers of French. Once it became clear that more than half of the TCs entering their fourth year were not able to meet the French proficiency requirements, which involved successfully passing a French proficiency test, the instructors and administrators became very concerned and responded positively to an invitation to work together to support the French proficiency development 114

of TCs by increasing the opportunities to use French in a variety of contexts. A guide for an online language portfolio was produced and disseminated to French TCs in the hope that it would motivate them to take charge of their proficiency development. The language portfolio was designed to allow students to become more aware of their actual proficiency in French, the role of proficiency in teaching French, and the various language learning opportunities that surround them. Assuming responsibility and developing autonomy in learning French were two main goals of the language portfolio. In addition to increasing access to “study elsewhere” opportunities, students are strongly encouraged to complete their field experiences connected to courses on child and adolescent development, equity in education, or inclusive education in French classrooms or with students learning French. It is also strongly recommended that French stream students complete their 100-hour field experience during their third year to increase their exposure and use of French outside the university. In addition, a French section of a social foundations of education course is now an option for teacher candidates in the fourth year of the program. Teaching assistants have also been hired to assist students with proficiency development beyond the confines of their French courses. These assistants have worked together with instructors in the program to develop workshops and online resources focused on the needs and interests of the students at different stages of the program. The topics of the workshops and resources developed for students in the first 3 years of the program are more general. The focus shifts to language 115

pedagogy in the final 2 years of the program, when the students’ efforts are directed towards being successful in their practicum. Although students, instructors, and administrators all perceive these new opportunities as helpful, they also expressed the sense that these opportunities are not integrated well enough in the program and that the structure of the program itself does not facilitate language proficiency development. Many of the students interviewed said that they were not aware of these new opportunities for proficiency development or that they did not have time to access them because they were supplemental in nature rather than required. In addition to the many field experiences in classrooms, schools, and community organizations built into each year of the program alongside the regular academic requirements, many students report working from 10 to 25 hours a week in positions often not related to education. Several instructors felt that students were not assuming sufficient responsibility for their own learning nor did they believe that contact time with students was sufficient to effectively support their proficiency development while also ensuring the academic/content-focused development of the often 40 or more students enrolled in their courses. Program administrators are working to develop an advising system that would involve students meeting with a French proficiency advisor either individually or in small groups once or twice a year. It will likely be challenging to schedule

116

these meeting as both students and staff already report feeling overwhelmed by a heavy workload. Although a number of program-based changes have occurred, it is difficult to judge the impact of these curricular and extracurricular innovations as their implementation is relatively recent.

Language Proficiency Assessment To ensure that the TCs have developed sufficient proficiency in French to be successful in a fourth-year course focused on French pedagogy connected to a multi-week practicum in a middle school or secondary school they are required to take a proficiency test at the end of their third year of study. They have the opportunity to take the test more than once as they are required to demonstrate proficiency in French in order to complete the program. Approximately 55% of SOU students pass the test upon their first attempts whereas 8 % pass on their second attempt. Six percent of students had not been able to demonstrate sufficient proficiency in French by the middle of their final year. To support this group, an alternative assessment process was developed to ensure their success by the end of their fifth year. This process begins with an individual meeting to help the teacher candidate in developing a proficiency action plan and culminates in an exit interview scheduled at the end of the semester to assess growth in the targeted areas. The proficiency test evaluates TCs’ ability to speak, understand, read, and write in French and ensures that candidates’ language skills are sufficient to teach French to 117

students of varying abilities in the school system. These proficiency tests are communicative in nature in that they involve test takers in language tasks similar to those that they might be involved with as French teachers in the school system. The proficiency test covers all language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and does not focus solely on knowledge of grammar. For example, test takers might be asked to: (1) write an email to an academic counselor requesting information for an upcoming class, (2) listen to a recording of a curriculum specialist describing innovative practices for the teaching of foreign languages, (3) give instructions orally for carrying out a particular classroom task, or (4) read a newspaper article on a topic in education and answer comprehension questions. The criteria for evaluation are as follows: (1) linguistic competence: mastery of grammar, vocabulary, agreements, spelling, syntax, pronunciation; (2) sociolinguistic competence: appropriate usage of language in different social contexts; (3) overall fluency; (4) style: coherence and cohesion of language and ideas as well as the ability to convey one’s message; and (5) appropriateness of ideas. After the test, a feedback form is completed and emailed to candidates along with their test results and suggested activities for improvement. The evaluation of language proficiency continues to be a challenge at SOU, where there are a number of competing priorities. Providing information on the nature of the test, test administration, grading, and provision of individualized feedback to candidates are resource intensive activities from a staffing perspective. The students report that preparing for the French proficiency test and then completing it are not only 118

stressful but also time consuming. Those who have had to take the test more than once described an increased level of anxiety and a lower sense of self-efficacy as teachers of French. The creation of a sample test as well as multiple computer-based versions of the test and feedback form would go a long way to addressing the issues and concerns raised by instructors and students. However, the costs associated with this work are also very high and at this time are not even being considered in spending projections for the concurrent teacher education program at SOU. In addition, the implementation of twice yearly proficiency development advising sessions beginning in the first year of the program would help to address the concerns of students around proficiency development.

Issues and Tensions In revisiting the action system for teacher candidates’ FSL proficiency development in the SLTE Program at SOU, it is possible to see that there are tensions and issues in each area of the system which in turn influence the system. Although the policies at various levels call for the development of French teachers in Ontario and the SOU environment is actively engaged in the preparation of French teachers, it is clear that there are many challenges related to French proficiency development in this context. The tensions and issues that the various members of the SOU community are continuing to grapple with include the fact that most of the teacher candidates in the program need support in developing their proficiency in French as only 1% 119

of the population living in southern Ontario reports being French-English bilinguals. One of the greatest challenges comes from wanting to advocate for students as they develop proficiency in French while taking into account issues of practicality and budget efficiencies. As the French proficiency development of the future teachers of French in Ontario is of such importance, the SOU community has attempted to broaden the conversation to include the Ontario College of Teachers, the Ontario Ministry of Education, FSL teacher educators from across the province, professors from French departments, as well as leaders in FSL education from local boards of education. In doing so, they have discovered that each one of these groups has been grappling with similar issues and that there is a desire to collaborate to find effective strategies to support the French proficiency development of French teachers in preparation.

Concluding Remarks The findings presented in this case study illustrate the complexities of helping TCs develop their FSL proficiency at SOU and uphold the concerns of many teacher educators regarding the linguistic competence of future language teachers. This is of particular interest because our case study took place in an officially English-French bilingual country where language and education policies strongly support the education of future second language teachers and many would not expect the linguistic proficiency of teachers to be an issue.

120

We hope that our case study will stimulate a productive and collaborative dialogue among second language teacher educators, teachers, and teacher candidates who may be searching for new ways to focus on the proficiency development of teachers of different languages in various contexts. Globalization has increased the opportunities and challenges for language teacher education as minority languages come in contact with majority languages and as the English language continues to spread (Holborow, 2006). The painstakingly learned lessons from one language teacher education program in a supportive policy context have the potential to inform the curriculum in other LTE programs, even where the policies may not support language teacher development to the same degree.

Notes 1. All names provided are pseudonyms.

References Bayliss, D., & Vignola, M.-J. (2000). Assessing language proficiency of FSL teacher candidates: What makes a successful candidate? The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(2), 217–244. Bayliss, D., & Vignola, M.-J. (2007). Training non-native second language teachers: The case of Anglophone FSL teacher candidates. The Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 63(3), 371–398.

121

Boutin, F., Chinien, C., & Boutin, J.-L. (1999). Les compétences langagières des étudiants-maîtres en français langue seconde au Canada. [Linguistic competence of student teachers of French as a second language in Canada]. Research Report. http://www.eric.ed.gov.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/ PDFS/ED427532.pdf Burnaby, B. (2008). Language policy and education in Canada. In S. May & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language Education (2nd ed., Vol. 1: Language Policy Issues in Education; pp. 331–341). New York: Springer. Canadian Parents for French Ontario. (CPFO). (2008). French second language education in Ontario: Report and recommendations to the Ministry of Education. http://www.dsb1.edu.on.ca/boardinfo/files/fiwc/ CPF-Report-Recommendations.pdf Canadian Parents for French Ontario. (CPFO). (2011). Directory of French immersion and extended French schools, 2011–2012. http://www.cpfont.on.ca/ Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Cardinal, L. (2004). The limits of bilingualism in Canada. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 10, 79–103.

122

Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage languages: The development and denial of Canada’s linguistic resources. Toronto, Ontario: Our Schools/Ourselves. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974. Erben, T. (2004). Emerging research and practices in immersion teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 320–338. Fraga-Cañadas, C.P. (2010). Beyond the classroom: Maintaining and improving teachers’ language proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 395–421. Hayday, M. (2005). Bilingual today, united tomorrow: official languages in education and Canadian federalism. Montrea l, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Hiramatsu, S. (2005). Contexts and policy reform: A case study of EFL teaching in a high school in Japan. In D. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holborow, M. (2006). Ideology and language: Interconnections between neo-liberalism and English. In J. Edge (Ed.), (Re-)locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 84–103). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Human Resources (HRSDC). (2006).

and Skills Development Canada. Learning: University participation.

123

Indicators of well-being in Canada. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/ [email protected]?iid=56#foottext_1 Johnson, D.M. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. New York: Longman. Johnson, K. (2009). Trends in second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 20–29). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kamhi-Stein, L.D. (2009). Teacher preparation and non-native English-speaking educators. In A. Bums & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., & Baldauf, R. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lapkin, S., MacFarlane, A., Vandergrift, L., & Hart, D. (2006). Teaching French as a second language in Canada: Teachers’ perspectives. Research Report. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. MacFarlane, A., & Hart, D. (2002). Shortages of French as a second language teachers: Views of school districts, faculties of Education and ministries of Education: A research study for Canadian Parents for French. http://www.cpf.ca/eng/pdf/ resources/reports/fsl/2002/Report.pdf

124

Ministry of Education of Ontario. (MoE). (1998). French as a second language: Core French, grades 4–8. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ministry of Education of Ontario. (MoE). (1999). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: French as a second language—Core, extended and immersion French. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ministry of Education of Ontario. (MoE). (2000). The Ontario curriculum, grades 11 and 12: French as a second language—Core, extended and immersion French. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ministry of Education of Ontario. (MoE). (2001). French as a second language: Extended French, grades 4–8; French immersion grades 1–8. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ministry of Education of Ontario. (MoE). (2008). Quick facts. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/quickfacts/ 2007–08/quickFacts07_08.pdf Naqvi, R., & Coburn, H. (2008). Assessment policy in teacher education: Responding to the personnel implications of language policy changes. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(3), 235–248. Office of the Commissioner of official Languages. (OCOL). (2010). Beyond obligations: Annual report 2009–2010, Volume 1. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

125

Ontario College of Teachers. (OCT). (2010). Transition to teaching 2010. Professionally speaking. http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/march_2011/features/ T2T.aspx Paesani, K. (2006). A process-oriented approach to Zazie dans le métro. The French Review, 79(4), 762–778. Pearson, L., Fonseca-Greber, B., & Foell, K. (2006). Advanced proficiency for foreign language teacher candidates: What can we do to help them achieve this goal? Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 507–519. Pearson, S. (2009). Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers’ attitudes to and construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 559–568. Reeder, K., Hasebe-Ludt, E., & Thomas, L. (1997). Taking the next steps: Toward a coherent education policy for British Columbia. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 53, 373–402. Richards, J.C. (2011). Competence and performance in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London: Longman. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave. Salvatori, M. (2007). Learning, discerning and yearning: The development of language proficiency on

126

non-native speaker French as a second language teachers in Ontario. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto. Salvatori, M. (2009). A Canadian perspective on language teacher education: Challenges and opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 287–291. Salvatori, M., & MacFarlane, A. (2009). Profile and pathways: Supports for developing FSL teachers’ pedagogical, linguistic, and cultural competencies. Report prepared for the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge. Statistics Canada. (2009). Population by mother tongue. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/ 97–555/ T401-eng.cfm?Lang=E&T=401&GH=4&SC=1&S=99&O=A Statistics Canada. (2010). Trends in the age composition of college and university students and graduates. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81–004-x/2010005/article/ 11386-eng.htm Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Ullmann, R., & Hainsworth, H. (1991). Towards the development of FSL teacher competencies: Some thoughts on

127

future teacher education programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 47(3), 486–496. Varghese, M., & Stritikus, T. (2005). “Nadie me dijo (Nobody told me)”: Language policy negotiation and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 73–87. Walker, C.L., & Tedick, D.J. (1994). Creating a culture of reform and reflection: Making changes in teacher education. Teaching Education, 6(2), 81–95.

128

3 An English Teacher Education Initiative in South Korea The Sociocultural Theoretic Analysis1 Eun-Ju Kim

Introduction Like other countries where English is taught as a foreign language, South Korea has undergone quite a few changes in public school English education for the last decade. The first significant change was the adoption of communicative language teaching (CLT), followed by the announcement of the Teaching English Through English (TETE) policy (Y. Kim, 2002; Kwon, 2000). Most recently, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) of South Korea announced the possible replacement of English as a subject in the Korean Scholastic Assessment Test (KSAT) with a National English Ability Test (NEAT; MEST, 2011). Motivation for these English education reform efforts in South Korea is rooted in the widespread dissatisfaction over the traditional reading comprehension and grammar-focused English education in public schools along with the increasing needs for the workforce fluent in English. Acknowledging 129

that the traditional approach has not succeeded in nurturing capable English users, all these reform efforts have one common goal: promoting English learners’ communicative competence, or ability to use the English language. Since then, many studies (E. Kim, 2008, 2009, 2011; S. Kim, 2008; Y. Kim, 2002) have reported the dilemmas or obstacles along with suggestions regarding the implementation of these policies at local schools. Among many factors influencing the success of the reform efforts, the studies commonly point out that teachers are of the utmost importance. Acknowledging the importance of teachers’ abilities and support, MEST has also offered diverse government-sponsored teacher education programs for Korean English teachers since 2003 (MEST, 2010). Among the government-sponsored English teacher Education programs, this study examined a 6-month intensive English teacher education program through a participant teacher’s diary. As the theoretical and methodological framework, the study adopted several concepts of sociocultural theory (SCT) such as goal-oriented human action, mediation, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and situated human development. By analyzing the participant teacher’s experience in the English teacher education program through a SCT lens, it is possible to examine the process of development the teacher went through during the 6 months. The findings of this study lastly suggest what future Korean English teacher education programs should be concerned with and pay more attention to for the success of the educational reform they want to realize in English classrooms.

130

Relevant Concepts of Sociocultural Theory Sociocultural theory (SCT) is a theory about the development of the human mind and its close relationship with social and cultural contexts. The primary tenet of sociocultural theory is that every human activity is artifact-mediated and goal-oriented (Vygotsky, 1978). That is, in order to achieve a goal a person sets, s/he mediates various artifacts or tools, which include both physical artifacts (e.g., hammer, computer, etc.) and symbolic artifacts (e.g., language, music. etc.) (Wertsch, 1998). In addition to the artifacts, people also mediate relationships to achieve the goals they set (Johnson, 2009; Lantolf, 2000). Provided that individuals are the ones who decide what to mediate and how to mediate to achieve goals, individuals are perceived as the active agents of their actions. However, this premise does not mean that the development of human cognition is solely an individual matter. Rather, SCT emphasizes the social nature of human cognition development (Lantolf, 2000; Verity, 2005). In SCT, artifacts and relationships are formed through history, and they are inevitably culture sensitive. Given that a person mediates and internalizes these culturally and historically constructed artifacts and relationships, SCT maintains that human development cannot be separated from social and historical contexts. In this sense, macro structures such as social, historical, and cultural contexts are crucial to understand human cognition and actions.

131

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is another SCT concept where the social origin of human development gets attention. ZPD is “the site where social forms of mediation develop” (Lantolf, 2000, p. 16) because it is believed to be a space of development caused only by collaborative interaction with cultural artifacts or someone else who is more capable. In order for the assisted performance in ZPD to be successful, “more efficient and narrowly targeted” (Verity, 2005, p. 4) mediation should occur. In SCT, scaffolding is a type of this “more efficient and narrowly targeted” mediation which helps an individual or learner to successfully perform a given task. For this to happen, scaffolding is what a learner needs in order to perform the cognitively loaded task. Even though Verity argues that using the term scaffolding should be limited to novice learners’ development, the boundary of novice learners is very adjustable in that an expert in one task can be a novice in another task depending on the task and situation. Finally, SCT assumes that human actions and cognitions are socially and historically situated; therefore they cannot be viewed or understood independently from the contexts or macro-structures within the people carrying out those actions. Both a specific context and an invisible but existing macro-structure affect human actions and cognitions in certain ways and vice versa. To see the situated human actions and cognition, human language plays an important role given that it is the mirror making it possible to connect human actions and cognitions with the context (Vygotsky, 1986).

132

Teacher Education Program from SCT Perspective When any language teacher education program is viewed from a socio-cultural theory perspective, what a participant teacher sets as the goal(s) of his or her participation in the teacher education program and what he or she mediates, internalizes, and externalize to pursue the goal become paramount. In SCT, teachers are the learners of teaching, but they are not the passive recipients of stimulus or knowledge imposed on them (Freeman, 2002). Rather, they are the active agents who mediate and transform the learned knowledge appropriating it within their own instructional contexts. Thus, every teacher’s experience in teacher education programs cannot be identical. That is, depending on whom the teachers are, where they are from, where they teach, or to whom they teach, what each teacher mediates, internalizes, and later externalizes is different. Therefore, it is impossible to quantify the teachers’ experience in a teacher education program. Instead, we need to focus on each teacher’s participation and learning in the program and ponder their meanings connected to the individual’s professional development as a teacher. In this regard, the goal of language teacher education is to understand the teacher’s experience (Freeman, 2002, p. 11). From SCT perspective, every language teacher education program should consider sociocultural context as the most essential element of the program. The discrepancy between theory and practice perceived by teachers in the field has frequently been reported as a limitation of traditional language teacher education programs (Freeman & Johnson, 133

1998). In spite of this, language teacher education programs have a tendency to focus on delivering or imposing expert knowledge on teachers (Johnson, 2006; E. Kim, 2008). However, in SCT, human development cannot be understood independently from the social and cultural context. Thus, a language teacher education program should be designed to involve the contexts in which the participant teachers are currently engaged. Along with understanding language teachers’ experience, a language teacher education program from a SCT perspective should also be the venue where teachers can get scaffoldings with which they can perform what they have not been able to alone. In other words, a language teacher education program should provide the place where teachers, encountering tensions in their instructional contexts, resolve them in a productive way with the learning or assistance they receive from their experiences in the teacher education program (Wardekker, 2010). Therefore, teacher educators should pay attention not only to the “contents of what teachers learn” but also to the process through which teachers can reflect their situated practices and establish learning communities where new conceptualization of their practices are constructed and reconstructed (Hawkins, 2004, p. 7). To do this effectively, exploring teachers’ language in the context of teacher education programs is unavoidable. SCT argues that language and cognition cannot be separately examined because they are “tightly interrelated in a dialectic unity” (Lantolf, 2000, p. 7). Johnson (2009) also mentions “language functions as a psychological tool that is used to make sense of experience, but also as a cultural tool in that it 134

is used to share experiences and to make sense of those experiences with others thus transforming experience into cultural knowledge and understanding” (p. 3). In this regard, teacher education programs should provide the linguistic tool (e.g., vocabulary) with which people can develop skills of reflexivity.

An English Teacher Initiative in South Korea

Education

The South Korean government launched a new form of English teacher education program in 2003. The overall goal of the new program is stated as improving teachers’ ability to implement communicative language teaching at schools. By stating “making the current English classes at public schools better through teachers’ professional development” (MEST, 2009, p. 1), the government expected the changes in school English instruction to ensue from teachers’ participation in the program. Unlike the previous short-term English teacher education programs, this new English teacher education program is a 6-month intensive program. A group of selected teachers are to take courses in affiliated institutions which have developed their own 6 month-long teacher education program. During the 6th month, the participant teachers have a chance of studying abroad by taking courses at affiliated institutions in English speaking countries. This study examined one of the new intensive teacher education programs through a teacher’s diary. Sponsored by MEST, the program was hosted by a university in Seoul, South Korea. The participating teachers took 12 courses on

135

campus during the first 5 months and then went to an English speaking country to take courses for 1 month. The courses offered in the program were divided into two tracks; the first one was to expand teachers’ expert knowledge regarding language learning and teaching, and the second track was to improve participant teachers’ overall English proficiency. The courses such as methodology, language acquisition, material development with technology, and practicum were offered for the former track. Meanwhile, other courses, titled drama, project, writing, discussion, and cross-cultural communication, were provided to enhance the participants’ English language ability. All the participant teachers were supposed to take a speaking course and chose one more language skill improving course among reading, listening, and writing. All classes were English-medium ones and the instructors were all English native speakers. Among the scores of secondary school English teachers who took part in the program, Jung-Mi, a female high school teacher, became the participant of this study. She started her teaching career as soon as she graduated from college and had taught English at secondary schools for 16 years2. Even though she was an experienced English language teacher with a long teaching career, Jung-Mi had found herself gradually losing competence in her teaching. As a way to regain competence in teaching, Jung-Mi voluntarily applied for this teacher education program and was accepted.

Data Collection and Analysis While Jung-Mi took part in the teacher education program, she wrote a diary regarding her participation in the program.

136

A total of 45 entries of her diary were collected and they became the main source of data for this study. The researcher also conducted classroom observation three times to survey Jung-Mi’s participation in the courses as well as to get a sense of the program in general. In addition to the diary and classroom observation, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted. The first three interviews were conducted while Jung-Mi was attending the program. These interviews asked about the details of her participation in and perceptions of the program. Two months after Jung-Mi returned to her school after completing the teacher education program, the last interview was conducted at her school. The interview focused on how Jung-Mi was doing at school, the changes she experienced, concerns she had, as well as some clarification questions regarding her diary entries. The interview data were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Collected data were analyzed through the inductive approach (Creswell, 1998) and then the relevant concepts of SCT. To begin with, the data were repeatedly read and examined. Using constant comparative method (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), the researcher organized and conceptualized the data to create categories that emerged in Jung-Mi’s diary. The initially created categories (e.g., learner, re-starter, complainer, old-timer teacher, classroom activities, etc.) were reduced into overarching categories (i.e., active participant, goal-oriented participation, concerns over the program, etc.) in the process of repeated reviews of the data. The categories and their meanings were then discussed and related to the tenets of SCT pertaining to language teacher education programs. Afterwards, the categories were merged into three themes (e.g., goal-oriented mediation, reflective teacher,

137

missed situated scaffolding) as they are presented in this chapter.

Findings Data analysis showed that Jung-Mi actively mediated her participation in the intensive English teacher education program. As an agent of the program participation, Jung-Mi reflected on diverse issues, some of which included the contents of the courses in the program, instructors and their teaching, classmates, language use, and program management. When Jung-Mi’s reflections were viewed and analyzed from SCT perspectives, the following three themes emerged as her participation in the program proceeded.

Theme 1: Goal-Oriented Mediation Jung-Mi’s mediations in the program were initially centered on the goals she set for this English teacher education program. Excerpt 1—Diary Entry 1:3 Nowadays, everyone is talking about English immersion—and, even if English immersion was not talked about as much, I personally believe that teaching English in English is the right way. So, I feel frustrated by my situation where I am not confident about teaching English in English… while I am in this program, I want to actively participate and study really hard changing the habits of the passive Jung-Mi of the past, and I hope to become a really confident English teacher six months later.

138

In Excerpt 1, Jung-Mi expresses her support for Teaching English through English (TEE) policy by stating that English class should be taught in English. In spite of her belief, Jung-Mi confessed that she had been very reluctant to carry out her classroom instruction in English for both personal—lack of confidence in her English—and institutional—students’ low proficiency—reasons. By working hard in the program, she wanted to be a confident teacher, and this was the goal she intended to work towards for the coming 6 months. What Jung-Mi meant with ‘being confident’ as an English teacher was to have a high level of language proficiency. By mentioning one of her classmates who she perceived was very good at speaking English and thus excellent at teaching, Jung-Mi declared having a higher level of speaking ability and vocabulary knowledge as her goals to achieve through the program (Diary Entry 5). Naturally, Jung-Mi’s mediations were frequently related to improving language proficiency in terms of speaking and knowledge of vocabulary. Excerpt 2—Diary Entry 11: I keenly realize the limitation of my brain and memory. I am so bad at recalling English words… I need to memorize more words and, most of all, I should do lots of reading. A professor gave me this tip, saying that reading is the best to improve vocabulary knowledge. I guess that the strategy is same both in your mother tongue and in a foreign language. But (he mentioned that) level and interest are important as well (in reading). The professor suggested that I should pick a book that is easy enough for me to understand as being interesting to me. When 139

I heard the suggestion, I realized it is not difficult or not really a new suggestion. But why haven’t I tried it yet? I am going to find a book (to read) right away. In this excerpt, Jung-Mi exhibits her strong desire to improve vocabulary knowledge, one of the goals she set. By specifically writing how to choose a book and what is important in selecting books for reading, Jung-Mi showed her determination to improve her vocabulary knowledge. Jung-Mi also expressed her interest in improving language skills by doubting whether her English speaking proficiency is being improved due to this program by writing, “I am not really sure whether my English is being improved. Well, it might be difficult to see the improvement now but I guess I could feel it by the time this program ends” (Diary Entry 13). As such, Jung-Mi constructed her participation in the teacher education program to achieve her goal to be a confident teacher, who she believes should be a capable English user. Thus, in her diary she reflected language learning opportunities in the program and connected them to her future study plan. In the last interview, Jung-Mi actually acknowledged that she had gained confidence in her ability to teach English through English after participating in the program.

Theme 2: A Reflective Teacher Not only did the program provide Jung-Mi the mediating opportunities regarding improving her English language ability, but the program also provided the mediating circumstances regarding her teaching practice. For instance, she learned some teaching techniques from the instructors’ 140

teaching method and planned to apply it in her own teaching as follows. Excerpt 3—Diary Entry 2: Even though it is not the case for all the teachers, I believe that teachers with considerable experience tend to teach more clear(ly) and competently. Professor Dan and Mary are good examples. I found that there are many things to learn from both. Mary gave a presentation using PPT to introduce herself in the first class. It was my first time to see that kind of self-introduction and I liked it a lot. I am thinking of doing it in my own class. In addition, Jung-Mi acknowledged the value of classroom observation in spite of the stress she had from it. While talking about microteaching she was doing in front of her classmates in the program, she reflected that classroom observation is needed to improve teaching practice: Excerpt 4—Diary Entry 4: Having someone who observes my teaching in my class is definitely stressful, but it is also true that class observation is a kind of vita-min for my teaching. According to Charlie, one or two classroom observations and a report from the observers or supervisors is normal procedure in Canada and the reports become the reference for when teachers find a job. When teachers receive bad evaluations three times in a row, they lose their job. Due to a different (evaluation) system in Korea, teachers are often called “people who are never fired.” Even though there are some teachers who try to improve their 141

teaching continuously, based on my own experience, I believe that that kind of stimulus is necessary. Comparing the teacher evaluation system in Canada with that in Korea, Jung-Mi admitted that she needs some external intervention (e.g., classroom observation) to enhance her classroom instruction. However, not all of Jung-Mi’s reflections over the program as a teacher are positive. Some of Jung-Mi’s reflections on her own teaching and her students were provoked by her dissatisfaction over some instructor’s instructional approach or negative attitudes. The following excerpt shows Jung-Mi’s disappointment from an instructor’s evaluation of her and her classmates’ micro-teaching. Excerpt 5—Diary Entry 15: Mini-lesson presentation was just completed today. All of the team’s presentations are done. But Mr. Cha’s feedback was very disappointing. His conclusion is that we are not good teachers only because of (our low) speaking ability. I thought Mr. Cha was a good instructor but now I think that he is just a good speaking (class) instructor but he is a very poor instructor when teaching teaching-methods. Jung-Mi found that Mr. Cha assessed the teachers’ teaching performance in his class mainly based on teachers’ language proficiency. His evaluation approach was disappointing to Jung-Mi because she believes that teaching includes more than proficient target language use. Regarding teaching, Jung-Mi called herself a confident teacher because she knows what her students need to learn and how to teach what her students need to learn.

142

Except 6—Interview 4: Except my English proficiency, I can say I am a very confident teacher. Personally, in teaching students, I can effectively deliver what students need to learn and I have made efforts for that. To Jung-Mi, “being confident” has two meanings; in terms of language proficiency, she is not a confident teacher but she is simultaneously confident as an experienced teacher who knows students and what they should learn in her instructional contexts. But she felt hurt when her teaching demonstration was mainly evaluated based on her English. As a matter of fact, as long as teaching English to local students whose main goal of English learning is to obtain good scores on paper-and-pencil tests, English teachers’ oral proficiency do not need to be native-like in South Korea. Rather, one of the goals of this program to pursue should have been to encourage teachers to have the increased self-esteem as non-native English teachers in the era of non-native speaker movement (Braine, 2010). Jung-Mi’s experience, however, shows that this teacher education program failed to do it. Like this, even though she initially enjoyed watching her English skills improve, Jung-Mi gradually became aware of what was missing in the teacher education program and they emerged as the third theme.

Theme 3: Missed Situated Scaffoldings As the end of the program approached, Jung-Mi started connecting what she had learned from the program and her classroom instruction. The more she tried to connect the 143

contents of the program with her school teaching, the more negative Jung-Mi became about the program. Excerpt 7—Diary Entry 20: The biggest concern I have nowadays is how I am going to teach when I return to school next year. The worst case would be if I keep teaching as I used to teach. However, it would be too difficult for me to directly apply what I’ve learned here in my teaching at school. (I am) doing lots of activities and games in Drama class, but they do not fit my (instructional) situation at all. How is it possible to do the activities with so many students in my small classroom? If this program were a good one, instructors should have precisely figured out the participants’ teaching contexts and helped us to find ways to adapt these activities in different classes. From Excerpt 7, it was possible to see that Jung-Mi wanted to change her ways of teaching as the result of this program participation. However, the activities she was exposed to in the program were mostly perceived either as not feasible or unrealistic in her current instructional context. Jung-Mi indicated that the program should be more sensitive to and knowledgeable about the reality of school English classrooms, implying that she did not get the scaffoldings she needed to transform her classroom instructions. While expressing her needs to set specific plans for teaching at school for the coming year, Jung-Mi also stated, “I hope that the program provides us time to discuss and make plans together for the instruction all of us should give right after we return to school” (Diary Entry 20). What Jung-Mi wanted was to share the ideas and 144

dilemmas with the colleague teachers who were in the similar community of English teaching practice with the hope that she can resolve the dilemmas or tensions she had experienced at her school. That is, Jung-Mi needed some situated scaffoldings with which she could be encouraged to transform her own classroom instruction. Unfortunately, however, Jung-Mi did not have the peer learning opportunities she wanted to have. Even though Jung-Mi sometimes got ideas for class instruction in the program, overall, she did not perceive that she was being assisted enough to change her class teaching. Rather, some courses provided decontextualized teaching methods and techniques to her, resulting in her doubting their application in her classroom. While listing work to do, Jung-Mi strongly criticized a class assignment because she believed that the assignment was neither authentic nor feasible. Excerpt 8—Diary Entry 24: How is it possible to write a 30 page long lesson plan? I am supposed to write every teacher talk for 45 minute lesson, but I don’t think plan would be realized as it is (in the lesson plan). It is not only very ridiculous to write all (class) talk but also very artificial and even nonsense to expect and write down students response in advance.

Discussion As a motivated participant of the English teacher education program, Jung-Mi brought a goal of her own and constructed her participation to achieve the goal. Because she regarded herself as a teacher who lacked ability and confidence in

145

using English, Jung-Mi set improving English proficiency as her primary goal to achieve over the 6 months. However, as an experienced teacher in South Korea, Jung-Mi was confident about her teaching methods and approaches. That is, through her teaching experience as an English teacher in Korea, she has established her own beliefs as to what good teaching is in her instructional context. Subsequently, Jung-Mi was not satisfied with the teaching-relevant courses offered in the program, whereas she had a positive opinion of the language skills courses. Through this teacher education program, the government intended to make the school English classrooms more communicative (MEST, 2009). When asked whether her classes have been changed after the teacher education program, however, Jung-Mi admitted that no significant changes took place. That is, even though the program provided opportunities for Jung-Mi to improve her English proficiency and thus confidence, it did not succeed in providing her the situated assistances or strategies which are feasible and applicable in her classroom teaching at school. In this sense, the program did not succeed in introducing an experimental stimulus that might result in changed or new conceptualization of English teaching in Jung-Mi’s teaching practice. At the same time, however, it is still doubtful whether the transformation the government expected to see in the participant teachers’ classroom instruction would have been realized even when some situated scaffoldings were offered in the program. Based on her teaching experience, Jung-Mi stated that when smaller class sizes and changes in tests 146

accompany the intensive teacher education program, South Korean school English classes would naturally adopt CLT. That is, as a community member of the South Korean English education community, she was well aware of the macro-structures (e.g., receptive skill focused exam and very exam-oriented students) hindering the successful implementation of CLT (E. Kim, 2008, 2009, 2011). As long as the macro-structures do not change, Jung-Mi might not seriously consider transforming the ways of her instruction with her improved language proficiency. Therefore, the teacher education program helped Jung-Mi become confident as a language user but did not succeed in assisting her to conceptualize, internalize, and later externalize a different teaching method in her own teaching.

Conclusion Using SCT perspectives, this study examined what has been done and remains to be done regarding English teacher education programs in South Korea. Jung-Mi’s diary displayed that the program was helpful in making her a more competent English user but was not very successful in providing situated scaffoldings that might have been useful for Jung-Mi’s instruction at school. The findings of the study should not be generalized because they are limited to one participant teacher’s experience. More research regarding the Korean English teachers’ participation is expected to provide an enriched picture of how teachers mediate, internalize, and externalize what they experience in different teacher education programs. In particular, the adoption of NEAT is expected to trigger a paradigm shift in teaching English in South Korean public school where the washback effect is 147

quite strong. Thus, future studies can explore how South Korean English teachers experience and adapt their instructional practices under this new proficiency-integrated assessment system. In spite of the limitation as a case study, the findings of the study have a clear implication for those involved in Korean English teacher education programs. Future language teacher education programs in South Korea should seek a balance between improving teachers’ language proficiency and assisting their conceptualization of novel ways of teaching they have not been able to attempt individually. The programs should also keep in mind that their primary goal as teacher education organizations is to understand teachers in different instructional contexts and their experiences rather than to transfer the knowledge or teaching skills to teachers. In a similar vein, lastly, the macro-structures under which teachers function as the members of an educational community should no longer be neglected in English teacher education programs in South Korea.

Notes 1. This paper reexamines the data used for Kim’s (2009) study from a different analytic perspective. 2. Pseudonyms are used for people mentioned in this chapter. 3. The diary was originally written in Korean, so the excerpts for this chapter were translated by the researcher and reviewed by a peer who has native-like fluency both in

148

Korean and English. Italicized words were produced originally in English. Utterances in ( ) are not originally produced but possible to deduce in contexts.

References Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and resarch design: Choosing among five tradition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from north American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching.’ Language Teaching, 35, 1–13. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. Hawkins, M.R. (2004). Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

149

Johnson, K. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257. Johnson, K. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. Kim, E. (2008). Status of CLT-based English curricular reform: A teacher’s voice from the classroom. English Teaching, 63(2), 43–69. Kim, E. (2009). To transform or not to transfrom?: An English teacher’s partcipation in a teacher education program. English Teaching, 64(4), 223–248. Kim, E. (2011). Ten years of CLT curricular Reform efforts in South Korea: An activity theory analysis of a teacher’s experience. In K.E. Johnson & P.R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education: A socio-cultural perspective for professional development(pp. 225–238). New York: Routledge. Kim, S. (2008). Five years of teaching English through English: Responses from teachers and prospects for learners. English Teaching, 63(1), 51–70. Kim, Y. (2002). Teachers’ and students’ perception of English use in the secondary English classroom. English Teaching, 57(4), 131–156. Kwon, O. (2000). Korea’s English education policy changes in the 1990s: Innovations to gear the nation for the 21st century. English Education, 55(1), 47–91.

150

Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). (2009). http://www.mest.go.kr/web/48194/ko/board/ view.do?bbsId=286¤tPage=3&&boardSeq=18632&mode=view Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). (2010). http://www.english.go.kr/english.html Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). (2011). http://www.mest.go.kr/web/279/ko/board/ view.do?bbsId=45&boardSeq=24284 Verity, D.P. (2005). Vygotskyan concepts for teacher education. Paper presented at the 4th JALT Pan-SIG Conference, Tokyo, Japan. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wardekker, W. (2010). CHAT and good teacher education. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development (pp. 241–248). Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

151

Part II Theory-Practice Nexus

152

4 The Role of Approaches and Methods in Second Language Teacher Education Nick Andon and Constant Leung Over its 60-odd year history, one of the key questions that applied linguistics has been concerned with is “How can we teach languages better?” (Davies & Elder, 2004, p. 1). The search for answers to this question has led to the development of a succession of methods and approaches to language teaching, including the more mainstream ones such as grammar translation, the audio-lingual method, and communicative language teaching, as well as more exotic (but nonetheless influential) methods such as the Silent Way, Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response, Dogme ELT and Crazy English. It is now widely accepted that the search for a single best method which could be applied in all contexts is futile, and the value of conceptualizing teaching and teacher education in terms of methods is questioned by some applied linguists (e.g., Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Nevertheless, a positivist belief that applied linguistics research leads to continued improvements in methodology and ever-increasing effectiveness in language teaching and learning seems to

153

persist, at least in the views of some teachers and teacher educators (Bax, 2003). An alternative view is that fashions in pedagogy come and go, with new methods often reinventing aspects of previously extinct ones (Howatt, 1984; Kelly, 1969), and it is notoriously difficult to prove the superiority of one method over another. It is argued that methods are never put into practice in the classroom in the way that their designers and proponents describe them in the literature, because they are theoretical constructs that are “far removed from classroom reality” (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, p. 28). Given the problematic status of methods, it would seem wise to make trainee teachers aware that there is more than one way to teach a language and to introduce a variety of methods. This implies also the need to provide information about underlying principles of different approaches and methods and discussion of the contexts they may be useful for, and how they can be adapted and combined to meet the needs of particular groups of learners. This is a very ambitious goal for short initial teacher education courses. A pragmatic alternative is to train new teachers to use frameworks of procedures or lesson paradigms (Rodgers, 2009) such as PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production) or ESA (Engage, Study, Activate; Harmer, 1998), process writing sequences (Hedge, 2005) or the three-stage listening comprehension lesson. However, these may not provide the best foundation for future teacher development. The aim of this chapter, then, is to examine the value of the construct of methods and approaches for second language teacher education by analyzing the ways in which experienced second language teachers draw on these constructs in their teaching, and how they conceptualize approaches and methods (as reflected in their articulation of their own practice). In the next section, the concepts of 154

approaches and methods are analyzed in more detail, and proposed alternatives are examined. Data from a study of experienced EFL (English as a foreign language) teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices are then analyzed, and the implications for teacher education are discussed. A number of key terms and frameworks are used in a confusing way in discussions of approaches and methods. For example, the terms ‘method,’ ‘methodology,’ and ‘pedagogy’ are sometimes used interchangeably (Adamson, 2004) and the distinction between these terms may not hold much significance for teachers (Akbari, 2008). This confusion is problematic in the context of debates about the death of methods and proposals to replace the whole concept of methods with a ‘post-method pedagogy’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Cook (2008) uses the term “teaching style” rather than method and argues that what he calls the mainstream style, incorporating a central focus on language points and use of PPP, is predominant in lessons, in teacher training manuals, and in popular course books. The term ‘method’ itself is used with a number of meanings in applied linguistics. Kumaravadivelu’s description of a method as consisting “of a single set of theoretical principles derived from feeder disciplines and a single set of classroom procedures directed at language teachers” (1994, p. 29) represents methods as imposed externally on teachers and exerting a degree of control over their practice by providing them with guidelines to be followed closely. This sense that methods are tightly prescribed has also led to the need to distinguish ‘methods’ from ‘approaches’ (Richards & Rogers, 2001) implying that an approach like CLT provides broader sets of guidelines, principles, and techniques to be applied more flexibly, but that approaches and methods are nevertheless similar 155

constructs: “An approach or method refers to a theoretically consistent set of teaching procedures that define best practice in language teaching” (Richards & Rogers, 2001, p. 15). Further confusion arises from the fact that Richards and Rogers’ widely used framework (2001) analyzes both approaches and methods into three levels of ‘procedure,’ ‘design’ (originally ‘method’!), and ‘approach.’ This second meaning of approach refers to theories of language and theories of language learning which provide the principles underpinning the techniques, procedures, and other aspects of the language curriculum specified within a method or approach (in the first sense of the word). Richards and Rogers’ framework shows that the concept of method has the potential to provide links between theory, practical principles, and practice (Adamson, 2004). This is especially valuable given the theory/practice divide in language teaching and the well-documented lack of communication between teachers and academics who do research and develop theoretical principles of language teaching and learning (Clarke, 1994; Freeman & Johnson, 1998). Training teachers in the use of an approach that provides coherent links between theory-derived principles and a set of practical guidelines, procedures, and activities would seem, on a common-sense level, to have great potential for initial teacher education in particular. However, disillusionment caused by the failure of successive methods to live up to the claims made for them, lack of evidence that one method or approach is more effective than another (Nunan, 1991), and a growing realization that language learning and teaching are too complex to be reduced to a single set of principles and procedures, led to the abandonment of the quest for the best method. It is recognized that learner, teacher, and contextual 156

differences mean that no one method could possibly be effective in every situation, and in academic discussions the whole concept of method is said to have disappeared (Akbari, 2008). Specifying methodology within the framework of broad approaches which are seen as more flexible and adaptable to different contexts should be less contentious than prescribing a more rigid method, and in many contexts, government curriculum policies do advocate a particular approach or approaches such as CLT or TBLT. However, critics of methods do not usually distinguish approaches and methods and suggest alternatives to both. These include developing appropriate methodology (Holliday, 1994) or context approaches (Bax, 2003) which take context instead of method as the starting point, or abandoning the whole concept of methods in favor of post-method pedagogy (Brown, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2006). As Akbari (2008) points out, though, abandoning method and adopting a post-method pedagogy places heavy demands on teachers. The knowledge, skills and confidence needed to create a personal pedagogy adapted to context could take teachers several years to develop, and would be impossible to impart on short initial teacher education programs. Another widely discussed and promoted alternative to selecting one particular approach or method is the idea of principled eclecticism, which involves teachers selecting and combining aspects of different methods and approaches to match teaching to the learners and context (Gabrielatos, 2002; Rivers, 1981). Principled eclecticism also requires a good knowledge of several approaches, including a thorough understanding of underlying principles as the basis for selecting the most appropriate procedures and activities and combining them into a coherent pedagogy.

157

Thus, although the idea of training teachers in the use of a single, coherent approach or method is problematic, the alternative of training novice teachers to be reflective practitioners or action researchers able to develop their own pedagogies to match the different contexts they may teach in seems to be an unrealistic aim for teacher education programs, particularly short pre-experience teacher training courses. Helping teachers to develop an understanding of a number of approaches and methods to allow them to be eclectic would also seem to be overambitious. The reality is that initial teacher education programs may only allow enough time to introduce trainees to a limited set of procedures for teaching aspects of language systems and skills, and a restricted understanding of underlying principles, in the hope that teachers will use this as a starting point to later develop a richer personal pedagogy that they are able to adapt to the teaching contexts they encounter. Research into the way experienced teachers understand approaches and methods and the ways in which they draw on and combine them to construct a personal set of principles and practices has the potential to inform the role of approaches in initial teacher education and continuing teacher development. The next part of this chapter, therefore, analyzes the ways in which four in-service teachers combine knowledge of approaches (and the principles that underlie them) with their own experiential knowledge and beliefs to form a personal approach to apply in a particular context. It also examines what has led these teachers to their current practices and beliefs in relation to methodology. The data discussed below were collected as part of a qualitative case study into experienced language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices in relation to approaches in 158

the applied linguistics literature, with a particular (but not exclusive) focus on the way teachers drew on one approach, task-based language teaching (TBLT). It involved the collection and analysis of qualitative interview and lesson observation data from four English language teachers working in private language schools in the U.K. (Andon, 2009). In addition to the CELTA1, a short initial teacher education course, all the teacher-participants have had a good deal of exposure to the professional knowledge base on approaches and methods through the post-experience DELTA2 and master’s programs they had taken, as well as from professional workshops, seminars, and conferences, and more informal opportunities to exchange ideas with colleagues. Their extensive teaching experience (between 7 and 11 years) has given them time to develop their own pedagogy, and they all work in contexts where they have some degree of autonomy over the methodology they use, and over other aspects of the curriculum. An initial interview sought to elicit participants’ own narratives about their teaching experience, their personal teaching approaches, and what they felt were the key principles that guide their work. Each participant was then observed teaching, and a follow-up interview used a stimulated recall protocol to elicit the key beliefs and personal principles that related to their practices. A second observation and second follow-up interview were used to confirm emerging findings and gather additional data. A profile of each teacher’s key practices and key principles was developed, drawing on and illustrated by data extracts. These profiles were then given to teachers for comment (see Andon & Eckerth, 2009, for further details).

159

The data show that these teachers make extensive reference to approaches in talking about their own teaching, and these approaches are also evident in the observed lessons. All four teachers were well-informed about CLT, and to a lesser extent TBLT, reflecting the fact that CLT in various forms has been widely discussed for over the last three decades and TBLT, argued by some to be the current orthodoxy in ELT (Littlewood, 2007), is the focus of much recent SLA research, the subject of several recent books for teachers, and figures prominently in recent textbooks for language learners. However, none of the teachers aligned themselves exclusively with CLT or TBLT, and they drew on and talked about other approaches, methods, and lesson frameworks including Dogme ELT, the Lexical Approach, PPP, ESA, and aspects of learner-centered and negotiated syllabuses. The four teachers have different declared positions in relation to TBLT. “Graham” feels that TBLT forms a large part of his approach, especially in his business English classes. there’s two schools in the language school and one’s a business school, and that’s completely task-based. (Extract 1: Graham) “David” also relates his teaching to TBLT, and as a teacher educator himself, he leads sessions on TBLT on CELTA courses, but he says he does task-based teaching only some of the time. “Helen” expressed some uncertainty about what TBLT was and mentioned the need for clearer models, even though in an interview she recalled learning about TBLT and trying to put it into practice on a diploma course. William, in contrast, feels he has a good understanding of TBLT but 160

argues that it is not appropriate to his current teaching context. Interestingly, though, in spite of these differences, all four teachers use tasks in strikingly similar ways in their lessons.

Graham Graham talked about the way his own approach developed and was influenced by the CELTA course and later on an in-service DELTA. On the CELTA course he was trained to use the PPP framework, but the benefits of this framework were challenged when he did his DELTA course: the one thing that really changed my approach, you know reading up for my DELTA and everything and seeing the PPP I didn’t even know it was I wasn’t aware that it was called that but seeing that thing absolutely slated by everybody in the books, and then I did my DELTA at International House Barcelona and I was, just it just gave me a whole new outlook on teaching. (Extract 2: Graham) Graham’s account of his development suggests that the training he received on these two courses was not presented in the context of a method or methods, but in terms of frameworks and sets of procedures like PPP, or teacher reformulation of learner language, or building lessons from what learners talk about at the beginning of a class, or turning topics into tasks. PPP is not considered to be a method as such, although as it is used in both the audio-lingual method and in weak or mainstream versions of CLT (Cook, 2008), its rejection by Graham’s DELTA tutors seems extreme. Through his own reading, though, he relates the various

161

teaching frameworks he draws on to other approaches he is aware of. that was what the DELTA did for me and then that sort of approach lent itself very well to a lexical type of thing as well, with sentence starters and the rest of the lexical collocation thing that would come up as well and the, different things like that, so it lent itself well to that, which is the reading I’d been doing, which wasn’t covered on the DELTA actually the lexical they were very blasé about it. (Extract 3: Graham) A lot of his knowledge of approaches and methods comes from the tutors on the DELTA course, who encouraged course participants to make their lessons task-based. the first I learnt about it was as a reading for our DELTA, it was one of the issues on our DELTA was task based, just making little things task based, you know, little gapfills task based, or little “A” and “B” jigsaw things task-based, you know we were very, they were very, they were quite into that. (Extract 4: Graham) Graham has also read one or two books about TBLT and in the interviews he showed good knowledge of key issues expressed in these. From his reading of Willis (1996), Graham seems to have a good understanding of some of the key definitions, principles, rationales, and procedures associated with TBLT, particularly the relationship between tasks and a focus on specific language forms. From both observation and interview data it is clear that, in addition to choosing tasks to focus on particular grammar points, Graham also does reactive focus on form (Long, 1997) or uses tasks as 162

a starting point to introduce new language (Samuda, 2001) with a clear understanding that he does not expect immediate mastery of the form. I had all this language on the board, it’s possible, it’s possible this this this, and then of course the actual thing was they might have been brother and sister, they could have been, they can’t have been, you know,… and then left it there… and not taking it any (further). (Extract 5: Graham) Graham is aware that different learners will learn different things from the same task: each person can take from it what they, what they, I mean I might hammer home one thing but a lot of things, they can take from it what they, what they, what they want, you know. (Extract 6: Graham) Graham is also aware that tasks, in theory, need an outcome, and that solving a communication problem or bridging an information or knowledge gap should take precedence over artificial use of pre-planned language points. For this reason, he is aware that many role-plays do not count as tasks: well a task has to have an outcome, doesn’t it or something so whether there’s an outcome at the end of the roleplay I don’t know not really, no… there’s no outcome so it can’t be a task really can it. (Extract 7: Graham) However, the principles of TBLT Graham describes are not always evident in his practice. Tasks are sometimes used to consolidate language points he has recently introduced in a way that resembles task-supported language teaching (Ellis, 163

2003), opportunities to focus on task outcomes are often downplayed or omitted, and Graham’s policy of instant correction does not allow learners the space to “notice the gap,” negotiate meaning and/or form, or re-use the same language after an opportunity to reflect on it. He sees the need to modify the approach to fit in with the expectations of learners, for example cutting out key stages in the task cycle to get back to the grammar work he felt his students expected. It was also clear from the observations of Graham’s lessons and further interviews with him that he combines aspects of TBLT with a number of approaches and his own ideas to create a highly personalized teaching style. He mentions that he has been influenced by Dogme ELT (Thornbury & Meddings, 2009), which was also promoted by tutors on his DELTA course. From this he adopted the principle of building lessons spontaneously from what learners bring to the class as well as drawing on his own personal experiences as lesson topics. Another influence is the Lexical Approach (Lewis, 2002) which he explicitly refers to, having read about it before starting the diploma course. Almost all of the presentation and correction of language in Graham’s classes involve words and expressions. One aspect of Graham’s methodology, which Graham attributes to his personal experience as a learner rather than to approaches and methods he has learned about, is his practice of correcting errors on-the-spot. This contradicts the general principle in CLT and TBLT not to interrupt students in the middle of fluency activities unless communication has broken down. The frequency and nature of Graham’s corrections suggests this is one of his key principles and the strength of his feeling about it is evidenced by an incident he related, about when he sought out the plenary speaker at a conference to argue with 164

him about this point. Graham feels that being corrected was of great benefit to him as a learner of Spanish, and he briefs his own students on this way of working. I say that I’ll correct on the spot when I can and things like that and in fact I never have complaints about that unless there are, (some that say you) shouldn’t correct on the spot and I’m just so convinced that you should. (Extract 8: Graham) Graham does not provide any rationale for this practice beyond his feeling that correction was beneficial to him as a learner of Spanish. Graham points out two things that enabled him to move away from pre-planned lessons with teaching points fixed in advance, to a teaching style that is more spontaneous and responsive to what comes up in lessons: first, his growing knowledge about language and about grammar; and second, growing confidence in his own ability to draw on previous lessons and not to have to rely on published teaching resources and lesson plans that map out in detail what the teacher and learners are going to do. the only thing I could say that’s come on is my language awareness, which gives you so much more freedom in the class I find, to be able to look into and do different things, you know, because then you notice a (blatant) language point or something. (Extract 9: Graham)

165

David David does not specifically describe his approach as task-based, but using tasks does form part of his approach. Like Graham, he combines TBLT with the lexical approach and also with the PPP framework, even though the underlying rationales are very different, if not incompatible. One lesson I observed was a good example of TBLT whereas the next lesson followed the PPP framework. David acknowledged that this is a feature of his way of working: some of the lessons I do are much more task orientated which is the first one you saw, and some of the lessons I do are much more sort of bitty language bits which all contribute towards tasks that are going to come up later in the week. (Extract 10: David) David and Graham use tasks in similar ways but for different reasons. Whereas Graham does use tasks to bring out new language, David is much more concerned to use tasks to practice and prepare students for situations they may encounter outside the classroom: David characterizes the transferability of language skills from the classroom to the world outside the classroom not just as the end product, but as the conceptual and motivational point of departure of a task-based approach: I would actually say that in a kind of more task-based approach, the whole driving force is actually, I want you to be able to walk out of the

166

classroom and feel that you can talk about this or make a phone call or something like that, yeah, that’s the real motivation. (Extract 11: David) Compared to Graham, David puts more emphasis on pre-teaching and practicing the language students may need to do the task. This to some extent contradicts some TBLT researchers’ definitions of tasks, for example Skehan’s widely quoted definition includes the idea that “tasks are not concerned with language display, are not conformity oriented, are not practice oriented [and] do not embed language into materials so that specific structures can be focused on” (Skehan, 1998, p. 10). To be fair, it should be pointed out that the textbook David was using for the lessons we observed provided these language points to be presented and practiced in preparation for the task, but the way David uses tasks is closer to task-supported language teaching (Ellis, 2003) than to TBLT. David acknowledges that an important influence on his methodology is a kind of “house style” that his institution has developed, largely through the way teachers share ideas, both through in-house seminars and more informal staff room talk about teaching. I think what has sort of influenced me from working there is the fact that we actually do quite a lot of in-house teacher training of each other, we have teacher development sessions at least once a week run by colleagues. So, we do talk a great deal about teaching and what’s important what’s not important, sharing of ideas, so I guess yes I have been indoctrinated into the [house style of my institution]. (Extract 12: David) 167

The Lexical Approach, which David draws on in his teaching, is currently one aspect of this house style although it appears that the house style is not fixed, but evolves and shifts depending on the current interests of teachers. there are certain teachers within the organisation who are very strong believers in teaching lexically and I think they’ve had quite an influence on the rest of us… […]… so when we were talking about what’s useful grammar to teach and what isn’t, their view was very much that grammar patterns are useful, but straightforward grammar in the sense of looking at the tense system and that kind of thing is perhaps not very useful. (Extract 13: David) One aspect of David’s pedagogy that is quite individual to him comes from an interest he has in the role of context on memory. Based on something he read, he talks about having developed the routine of getting learners to remember and retell what they read or listened to in the previous lesson’s text. He believes that it is helpful to remember new language in connection with the context of the lesson and the text they first encountered this language in.

Helen and William Helen and William both studied foreign languages at school and university, and it was the experience of teaching English during the time they spent abroad that led them to become language teachers themselves. Helen’s approach is broadly a mainstream (weak) communicative one (Cook, 2008) and this is influenced by the fact that, like David, Helen is involved in

168

initial teacher training as well as teaching language classes, and is often observed by her trainee teachers: And when they’re observing you definitely teach to a very PPP kind of pattern really. So they can see where you’re going and what you’re doing. I do not think everyone in the school does, but because that’s how, well, we teach the ESA. (Extract 14: Helen) Helen pointed out that her school encourages teachers to use the ESA framework (Harmer, 1998), which stands for Engage, Study, Activate, and is a variant of PPP. The school also specifies a syllabus of grammar points for each level, based around EFL textbooks which also follow a weak communicative approach. Helen’s lessons alternate between controlled grammar and vocabulary practice activities and activities that are more task-like, but she does use the latter to provide students with opportunities to express their own ideas and engage in the kinds of meaning-focused interaction leading to communicative outcomes that also characterize tasks within TBLT. She also warns trainee teachers about too much TTT (teacher talking time) and this seems to inhibit her from saying too much in her own class. One of her areas of interest and expertise is pronunciation, and this is also reflected in the attention she pays to this aspect of the language system. One of her key principles is that students should consciously reflect on the strategies they are using and learning, for example in relation to reading, or answering exam questions, and she also feels that she would be deficient in her role as a teacher if students felt that classes were providing opportunities for them to talk to one another without her providing them with input on new grammar and 169

vocabulary. So the opportunities Helen provides for students to communicate personal meanings and opinions function mainly as carrier content for grammar practice or exam practice, and her methodology is a very good match with the “mainstream style” which Cook (2008) claims to represent the bulk of EFL teaching over the last 70 years. William had a very different teaching style, and in terms of approaches and procedures, the one that is closest to the way he teaches is the negotiated syllabus (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000). His own experience of living in China as a student led him to his belief that participating in what he calls ‘communities of practice’ provides the best language learning experiences. For William, a community of practice is a group of people working together, sharing knowledge, solving problems, and learning from one another, and he tries to replicate this in his lessons. He encourages students to choose topics for the class, bring in their own texts, decide amongst themselves what they want to do with the texts, and draw on the resources of the group to learn. He does not use textbooks and he encourages students not to use dictionaries if they can find out meanings from the context or from other students. A major influence on his teaching style is that when he started at the school he now works at, several years ago, there were few teaching resources and few teachers for the number of classes, so that the sheer quantity of teaching he had to do in a week did not allow much time for planning. In response, he has evolved a style where he builds on what learners bring to the class, and where, in effect, learners do a lot of the lesson planning during the lessons themselves. As such, his approach reflects aspects of Dogme ELT and is consistent with some principles of task-based learning, but William does not align himself with any particular approach. 170

Discussion All four teachers have developed their own individual teaching styles and all are able to discuss the ways they teach with reference to different approaches, principles, or frameworks, although they do not align themselves with a single approach or method. They have been influenced in different ways by their own experiences as learners, by teacher education courses they have taken (and in two cases, through their work as teacher educators themselves), through their professional and academic reading and attendance at conferences and workshops, through the different contexts they have taught in, and the kinds of learners they now teach. The knowledge they have gained, for example of grammar in Graham’s case or pronunciation in Helen’s, and the confidence they have developed to be less dependent on resource books and to judge the value of activities for themselves have helped them develop their individual teaching styles. In spite of this, there are striking similarities in their methodology. All four of them plan learner-centered lessons where students are actively engaged in communicating in pairs and groups, exchanging personal meanings and opinions, and most of the lesson time is devoted to language-using activities rather than teacher explanation and form-focused practice. They all take steps, although in different ways, to establish connections between the classroom and authentic communication in the world outside. At least some of the time, decisions about what language is focused on in lessons is based on the requirements of the task, and language is taught reactively in post-task focus on form as well as pre-taught in preparation for a communicative activity. Thus, although these teachers

171

combine different approaches in different ways, they do seem to be working in broadly the same paradigm. However, it is clear that their shared practices are not the result of these teachers being trained to use the same method or approach. Rather, as Lightbown (2000) points out, at any one time, second language teachers share a broad set of assumptions. For example, at the time she was writing, these assumptions included the need to provide exposure to authentic input, opportunities for meaningful interaction in pairs and groups, and a certain amount of form-focused instruction. However, in the 1950s when she was a student, a completely different set of assumptions was prevalent, and “in the late 1960s ‘everybody knew’ that language was learned through imitation, repetition and drill, leading to the habits of correct language production” (Lightbown, 2000, p. 434). So, in spite of different institutional styles, these UK-based teachers all seem to belong to a wider community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and this, rather than having been trained in the same methodological approach, manifests itself in the shared assumptions and practices of these teachers. Criticisms of methods relate less to the idea of educating teachers about a range of different methods and approaches, both historical and current (and note that earlier methods do not disappear when new ones come along, but are often combined with aspects of new methods). Rather, critics focus on the idea that teachers may be trained in a particular method and may attempt to apply it uncritically or without proper consideration of its “fit” with a particular teaching context—and it is not only teachers but also policy makers who may promote a particular method or approach uncritically. Teaching is complex, and teaching a language is 172

particularly complex, and there are no straightforward formulae or recipes that will be effective in every context. For this reason, teacher educators and policy makers would be unwise to promote a particular approach as being the “best” or “most effective”—rather they need to help teachers to make decisions about which approaches are the most appropriate for a particular context. And it is a question of which approaches rather than which approach as within any class different learners may have different needs and thus not all respond equally well to the same approach. Learners differ in many ways, including their motivation, aptitude, goals, willingness or ability to take charge of their own learning, and perhaps most importantly, their learning styles. Contexts and educational cultures themselves differ, not only in their aims for language education, but also in expected teacher and learner behaviors, class sizes, resources available, the nature of examinations and of textbooks, and many other factors which affect the question of which approach or method might be most effective. Lastly, teachers have their own teaching styles, preferences, and beliefs which will affect their choice of approach and the way they put that approach into practice. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) argue that knowledge of approaches and methods (as opposed to training novice teachers to use a single method) helps teachers to reflect on the thinking that underlies their actions and allows teachers to choose to teach differently from the way they themselves were taught. By learning about different methods, they feel teachers gain an expanded repertoire of techniques. Similarly, Bell argues that providing teachers with sets of options “empowers teachers to respond meaningfully to particular classroom contexts” (2007, pp. 141–142) and enables them to build their own methods. As part of the knowledge base of 173

language teaching this knowledge helps teachers to participate in their professional community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and provides them with the professional discourse needed to discuss their conceptions and compare them with those of colleagues. Providing students with the language to reflect on and discuss their own practices and those of others is perhaps the most important of these benefits. As Graham points out, he was not aware of potential limitations of the PPP methodology he was trained in until discussing it as a methodological framework gave him the language to examine it and discuss it and compare it with alternatives like TBLT. Knowledge of different methods and approaches provides teachers with language and conceptual tools that enable them to be reflective and responsive to context. At a minimum, therefore, teacher education needs to provide a basic understanding that language can be taught in different ways, and that, although it is possible to combine techniques and frameworks from different approaches and methods, principled eclecticism requires knowledge of underlying principles. The ability to match methodological choices to different contexts and to the needs of different learners takes time, experience, and confidence to develop, but an understanding of different approaches and methods can help teachers to conceptualize and to discuss the choices available, not only with colleagues, but also in negotiations with learners themselves. The role of methods and approaches in language teaching is shifting, but the study of approaches and methods on teacher education courses remains of value.

174

Notes 1. Cambridge ESOL Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults—a 4-week course if studied full time, combining classes on methodology with teaching practice and teaching observation. 2. Cambridge ESOL Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults—a 3-month course if studied full time, for experienced teachers.

References Adamson, B. (2004). Fashions in language teaching methodology. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 604–622). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641–652. Andon, N. (2009). What roles do theory and research play in language teaching? A case study on the task-based approach in language teaching. Unpublished thesis, King’s College, London. Andon, N., & Eckerth, J. (2009). Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 286–310. Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278–287. 175

Bell, D. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead? ELT Journal, 61(2), 135–143. Breen, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). Classroom decision making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, H.D. (2002). English language teaching in the “post-method” era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 9–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Clarke, M. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 9–26. Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). London: Hodder Education. Davies, A., & Elder, C. (2004). General introduction. Applied linguistics: Subject to discipline? In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 1–15). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K.E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. Tesol Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417.

176

Gabrielatos, C. (2002). Shopping at the ELT Supermarket. Developing Teachers. http://www.developingteachers.com/ articles_tchtraining/eltshop1_costas.htm Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow: Longman. Hedge, T. (2005). Writing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kelly, L. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27–48. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

177

Lewis, M. (2002). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Boston: Thomson/Heinle. Lightbown, P.M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243–249. Long, M. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching: Option 3. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual McGraw-Hill Satellite Conference. http://www.mhhe.com/ socscience/foreignlang/conf/option3.htm Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Richards, J., & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Rodgers, T. (2009). The methodology of foreign language teaching. In K. Knapp & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 341–372). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In

178

M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 119–140). London: Pearson. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Thornbury, S., & Meddings, L. (2009). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English language teaching. Surrey: Delta. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

179

5 Infusing Real-World Connections in TESOL Teacher Training Hongli Fan

Introduction As pointed out by Freeman and Johnson (1998), the knowledge base of language teacher education in North American universities is generally disconnected from the authentic activity of teaching in actual schools and classrooms. There is a debate regarding the core of teacher education as to whether it should focus on the nature of language and language acquisition (Yates & Muchisky, 2003), or on the activity of teaching itself, i.e., how L2 teachers learn to teach (Freeman & Johnson, 1998). The present author agrees with Freeman and Johnson (1998) that teacher education has focused primarily on what teacher educators think pre-service teachers need to know while losing sight of how they know. Teacher educators sometimes tend to forget that pre-service teachers are not “empty vessels waiting to be filled with theoretical and pedagogical skills” (Freeman & Johnson, 1998, p. 401). According to Freeman and Johnson (1998), if we do not take into account pre-service teachers’ previous experiences, we may not 180

understand why their ways of thinking often conflict with what we advocate. Similarly, if opportunities are not provided for pre-service teachers to make sense of the codified knowledge in textbooks, they might misunderstand the content, and more dangerously, forget the pedagogical knowledge they learned when they actually begin to teach. The frontloading model that we traditionally have where pre-service teachers learn content and pedagogy, practice in teaching practicum, then hopefully develop expertise in their career is inadequate to say the least (Johnson, 2006). The field of teacher education has started to recognize this disconnect between what is taught in universities and what teachers actually do in the classroom. Three studies that illustrate this inadequacy in teacher education are presented next. Farrell (2007) recognizes that pre-service teachers may have unrealistic expectations for their practicum, namely, that they can translate theories learned in class into practice. In his attempt to help a pre-service teacher of English in Singapore who failed her first practicum, Farrell asked her to write reflective journals for her pre-practicum. These journals revealed hidden maxims that the student held about teaching which included “teach the same way as I have been taught; finish the lesson at all costs; give observers what they want (p. 197, 198, 199).” These maxims may have led to the failure of her first practicum. The study demonstrated the importance of engaging in critical reflection in the practicum so that both teacher educators and pre-service teachers could be aware of pre-service teachers’ evolving theories of teaching. In his conclusion, Farrell emphasizes that teacher educators need to

181

elicit pre-service teachers’ maxims “before, during and after the practicum” (p. 200). Flowerdew (1999) reported that graduates from a BATESL program in Hong Kong abandoned some of the beliefs of appropriate teaching they had acquired in their teacher education program. Although students in that program underwent a 3-year program, where some practicum was part of the curriculum every year, they were overwhelmed by the reality of their first years of teaching so they tended to revert to a more teacher-centered approach and used their first language more in the classroom. This study revealed the gap between the ideals of teacher preparation and the realities in classrooms. Flowerdew suggested integrating more practice before pre-service teachers graduate and providing more mentoring after they start their career. The present author believes that one of the reasons that those teachers diverged from their teacher preparation program is that they never fully adopted the ideals either because of the influence of previous experiences or because they did not know how to translate the ideals into practice in classrooms. Similarly, Watzke (2007) followed in-service foreign language teachers in their first 2 years of teaching and found that these teachers initially focused on taking control of their classrooms instead of promoting communicative language learning. In their second year, with reflective teaching and mentoring from university faculty, these teachers gradually began to shift their pedagogical knowledge back to the practices advocated in their teacher preparation program. Watzke suggested that the knowledge base of L2 teacher education should focus on implementing instead of transmitting knowledge. 182

It is clear that problems exist in the current format of L2 teacher education: First, there is a discrepancy between what teacher educators preach and what beginning in-service teachers do in their classrooms. Secondly, there is a lack of opportunities for pre-service teachers to internalize theories. There is also a need for more practical experiences in teacher education for pre-service teachers as well as a need for greater mentoring in the first years of in-service teachers’ careers. In addressing the previously-mentioned issues, Johnson (2006) examines the sociocultural shift in teacher education and reiterates that teacher educators should study teachers’ prior experiences and their social contexts. However, as some have pointed out (Bartels, 2004; Chamberlin, 2000), it is difficult to connect this sociocultural emphasis to everyday teacher education programs. In other words, Johnson and Freeman have not offered concrete ideas to reform the current L2 teacher education. As Freeman and Johnson (1998, 2004) have repeatedly emphasized, they do acknowledge the importance of language structure and SLA in language teaching, but they argue that the core of the knowledge base of teacher education should be how teachers learn to teach. However, what remains to be seen is exactly how to translate “how teachers learn to teach” to actual programs or courses in teacher education. The two projects presented in this chapter attempt to offer ways to bring about this sociocultural shift into teacher education. More specifically, this chapter shows how to infuse unique practical components into traditional courses in order to bring pre-service teachers’ previous experiences and beliefs to the surface, and to connect university classrooms with pre-service teachers’ future teaching environments. 183

Pre-service teachers in TESOL are in a unique situation in L2 teacher education because in most cases there is a big difference between teacher and student populations. Whereas the ESL student population is comprised of diverse linguistic, racial, and cultural backgrounds, the pre-service teacher population is predominantly white, middle class, female, and monolingual (Baldwin, Buchanan, & Rudisill, 2007). Based on these characteristics, it is reasonable to argue that the majority of pre-service teachers in TESOL have never experienced or even witnessed the challenges that their future students experience in terms of linguistic, cultural, academic, or social adjustment. Compared to their peers in many other disciplines, pre-service teachers in TESOL are disadvantaged by their lack of knowledge concerning their students’ sociocultural environment. For this reason, pre-service ESL teachers need not only teaching experience but also opportunities to connect with ESL learners outside the classroom.

Remedies Studies

Proposed

in

Previous

Johnson (1996, p. 768) claims that a 1-semester teaching experience is “grossly inadequate” to prepare pre-service teachers for their future profession. In order to provide a remedy for this 1-semester practicum at the end of most TESOL programs, Johnson (1996) proposes PDSs (Professional Development Schools): learning centers where university faculty and site-based teachers share in the responsibility for preparing novice teachers. In PDSs, in-service school teachers learn about up-to-date research in

184

their discipline, pre-service teachers experience first-hand the teaching environment in which they will be working, and university professors gain insights into what is actually happening in pre-college classrooms. Teaching is seen in PDSs as an ever-evolving form of art that requires not just doing but also reflecting and thinking. But setting up and sustaining a PDS is no simple task (Grossman, 1994) because it requires a considerable amount of coordinating and commitment from three parties (local schools, the university, and pre-service students), not to mention the cost. An integrative model for practicum which is similar to PDSs is proposed by Stoynoff (1999). The model proposed is a 4-semester-long, integrative one. Instead of treating practicum as a capstone course, the model connects pre-service teachers with in-service teachers from their first semester. The responsibility of pre-service teachers and their participation in the field gradually increase as they proceed through the program. The amount and difficulty of the tasks they are involved in also change over time, ranging from observation, peer teaching, and lesson-plan designing to classroom teaching. All the traditional components of practicum are in this model, but they are spread out into 4 semesters and gradually increase in intensity. Again, this model requires considerable coordination and cooperation. Considering the coordination and cost of a PDS or an integrative PDS, the approach that the present author is proposing here is based more on an individualized course of study. It is preferable that each course in a TESOL program incorporates a practical component, but the exact format of that component should be based on the specific needs of the

185

course, including its content and objectives as well as available resources. The following section presents two projects the present author carried out in a TESOL program. The projects took place in a comprehensive liberal arts university with a focus on teacher preparation located in the state of New York. The school offers a TESOL program at both the undergraduate and the MA level. The 4-year undergraduate TESOL program will lead to an initial teaching certification in Adolescence Education (Grades 7 through 12) in New York state. The program in question is an undergraduate TESOL program where the course work is composed of two parts: major-related courses such as second language acquisition, linguistics, English grammar, and various methods courses, as well as education-based courses, including educational psychology, adolescent education, and special education. Student teaching is scheduled during the last semester of the program. The four required methodology courses focus on issues ranging from general methodology, reading, and writing, to content courses (math, science, and social studies). Though some of these courses have always required students to do peer-teaching and observations, students in general have indicated that they felt ill-prepared for the actual challenges of their culminating student-teaching.

Project 1: Tutoring in a Methods Course Teaching Reading in ESL Classrooms is one of the methods courses in the TESOL program mentioned earlier. It provides 186

a theoretical and practical grasp of several current views of first and second language reading and examines materials, teaching methods, and testing procedures used in ESL classrooms. In the spring semester of 2009, a tutoring component was added by the present author to the reading methods course (generally taken in the third year) in addition to all other existing components (lectures, group discussions, lesson-plan designing, and revision and teaching demonstrations). The course has always required pre-service teachers to design and revise lesson plans. In the project, they were also required to teach the first version of the lesson plans to an ESL student before revising and submitting them again for a grade. The benefit of the project was two-fold: Pre-service teachers would have a real set of proficiency level, language background, and grade level to base their lesson plans on and the instructor (the author) could rely on the learners to show pre-service teachers what worked and what did not. Furthermore, by introducing real-life experiences, the reading methods course allowed academic and field experiences to become interrelated and complementary parts of a whole that students engaged in simultaneously. Practice was thus integrated into the program instead of being a capstone course. Students enrolled in the course participated in teaching while talking about teaching; in other words, they learned how to teach while actually doing it.

187

Participants The participants in the study were seven pre-service teachers—all white, middle class, and female. They were in their junior year of college, and in their first or second year of the TESOL program. The pre-service teachers could choose to teach their lesson plans to any ESL learner at any level. One pre-service teacher chose an undergraduate student from China and another chose two ESL learners (2nd grade) from South America attending a school in her hometown. The other five pre-service teachers had no personal contact, so the instructor contacted a local ESL teacher who gladly accepted the pre-service teachers to tutor her students. The ESL students in the local schools were five girls of different origins: Ukraine, Laos, Mali, Vietnam, and Puerto Rico. The grade level ranged from 3rd grade to high school senior. Their reading proficiency levels ranged from low-intermediate to advanced.

Procedures and Data Collection Pre-service teachers and ESL learners met periodically throughout the semester to improve learners’ reading proficiency. As part of the requirements for the course, the pre-service teachers needed to design four lesson plans. They were asked to meet with their assigned learner(s) at least once to carry out each lesson plan. Before actual teaching sessions, they were required to meet with the learner at least twice to get to know him/her. 188

After teaching their lessons to their ESL learner-partner(s), they wrote a one-page reflection essay identifying what went well and what did not and attached it to their revised lesson plan. Reflecting on one’s own teaching makes clear one’s teaching philosophy, beliefs, techniques, successes, and failures so one can improve. Reflection is essential to bring awareness to pre- and in-service teachers. In fact, reflection was an essential component of the course. There were three different types of assignments on reflection: the reflection essays attached to each of their revised lesson plans, 10 journals they kept throughout the course, and a final reflection paper at the end of the course. In addition to the reflection papers and journals required for the course, towards the end of the semester, pre-service teachers also had conferences with the instructor to talk about the experience. The objective of the conference was to provide an open and relaxing environment for pre-service teachers to talk freely about their experience so that they might provide more details than on paper. Data were collected through the journals, reflection papers, conferences, and the lesson plans.

Results Data gathered throughout the semester showed an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards the project. The following themes emerged from the data: The project gave pre-service teachers insights into the profession and confirmed their career choice.

189

Even though not solicited, five out of the seven pre-service teachers mentioned how this practical component in the course confirmed their love for teaching and their career choice. For all but one student, it was the first time they had experienced authentic practice or even met with an ESL learner. Before the course, most of their knowledge on teaching ESL in elementary or secondary schools had been based on anecdotes. This project opened the door for them as insiders into the profession. It provided a closer look at what to expect when actually teaching in a classroom, and they liked what they saw, as indicated in one of the journals. (All the quotes from the pre-service teachers enrolled in the methods course are numbered in the following list and all the names are pseudonyms. Words in italic are added by the author.): 1. I was able to observe the ESL students in their natural environment and watch their teacher interact with them. This gave me plenty of insight into what my future career will be like.… I think I have definitely found the career I want to have for the rest of my life (or close to it). The project made it possible for pre-service teachers to internalize teaching techniques learned through textbooks. When designing their lesson plans, pre-service teachers were required to choose a specific grade and proficiency level on which to base their plans. Before this project, reading material not appropriate for the designated grade or proficiency was often found in the lesson plans. With an imaginary audience 190

that behaved perfectly, this problem did not even surface for pre-service teachers. This project remedied that situation because its hands-on nature had a far greater effect than just written feedback from the instructor, as illustrated by the following quotes: 1. Your original thought of what is difficult and what is easy may not be the case with a real student. 2. The experience helped me design my lesson plans because it gave me more of a focus on what to teach at what level. The importance of knowing the learners’ interests was emphasized in the class and techniques to find out about them were presented, but it was not until the field experience that pre-service teachers realized just how important these seemingly simple techniques were. 1. I had high expectations. I wanted N (a high school junior) to be really involved and interested in the lesson. In addition, I also wanted her to understand everything.… I had to modify the directions and the student’s objectives because they were simply too high. 2. I had to develop a lesson that I thought N would enjoy. To my dismay, my reading did not interest her one bit. 3. After learning about B (a seventh grader) and observing her reading, I decided to write a lesson plan that reflected a book of fiction she wanted to read. This lesson was fun and it encouraged her to read the entire book (close to 600 pages) in a few

191

weeks. Mrs. K (a cooperating teacher) and I were astonished at her perseverance in reading the novel. Along the same lines, the course also emphasized the importance of knowing the students’ prior linguistic knowledge, content background, and reading strategies. One pre-service teacher had planned to teach reading strategies introduced in the course to her student (a high school senior). After receiving feedback from the instructor, she chose not to and found it was a smart move when she was teaching the lesson: 1. I am glad that I decided not to focus on reading strategies as much as I had in mind.… I found that Salready used some of the reading techniques I had in mind. When she reads in Russian, she always highlights and takes notes in the margins. The instructor was pleased to see that the experience really put the education of students as the central focus for pre-service teachers. The project certainly infused a greater sense of cultural awareness into the pre-service teachers. When talking about culture in TESOL in the U.S., U.S. culture is often mentioned as the target culture for ESL learners to integrate into. Only recently has the field started paying attention to ESL learners’ identity (including their culture, language, and lived experiences) and its impact in TESOL (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Through their experiences in the project, pre-service teachers learned to understand ESL learners not only as a unique community, but more importantly as individuals with their own cultures, languages, 192

and personalities. “Culture” was no longer a big word the instructor preached about in classes. It became better situated, understood, and individualized through their ESL learner-partners. Pre-service teachers might forget the words or stories in their textbooks, but the knowledge gained in their experience will remain with them in their personal and professional development. Pre-service teachers also came to understand that teaching was a twoway learning process as both teachers and students assume both roles at the same time. 1. If we show more interest in our partner’s culture, they will most likely feel more comfortable with us, respect us more and we could learn a lot from them, instead of them just learning from us. 2. B taught me about many things, such as “how to see America through a fourteen-year old ESL learner’s eyes.” 3. N taught me a great deal, in fact, what N taught me happened to be the most unexpected lessons. For example, she taught me the importance of catering the lesson to the needs and wants of the students. Although I learned this from my professor and the textbook, N gave it an entirely different meaning and reason to it.

Project 2: Conversation Project in a Theory Class

Partner

Theoretical Foundations of Teaching ESL is a required course for all TESOL majors and is one of the first courses taken in 193

the major. There was no built-in practical component when it was originally designed. The format of the course was mostly lecture based. When the present author started preparing for this course, it was felt that there was a lost opportunity for students to familiarize themselves with the multi-dimensional aspects of their future career if the course were carried out with lectures and discussions only. The content of the course concerns theories in second language acquisition (SLA), language teaching, and learning. The present author completely agrees with Johnson (2004, p. 240) when she pointed out that “instead of arguing over whether or not L2 teachers should study, for example, theories of SLA as part of a professional preparation program, attention should maybe better focused on creating opportunities for L2 teachers to make sense of those theories in their professional lives and the settings where they work.” Often theory courses do not “make sense” to students because they have no way to relate to the theories in a practical setting. Because students will only understand theories if they can make sense of them and internalize them (Johnson, 1996), the present author thought it would be beneficial to make the theories more tangible to the students by introducing a project called the conversation partner project. In a nutshell, the project required each of the pre-service teachers enrolled in the class to pair up with an international student within the institution, meet frequently, and keep a journal of their meetings. The rationale of the project was simple: Pre-service teachers would gain experience working with international students and be exposed to ESL learners while gaining a deeper understanding of theories taught in class. At the same 194

time, international students would benefit from the project by improving their English and learning about U.S. culture. Conversation partner programs have been found useful in the literature on teacher education. Wilson (1993) found that teacher education students engaged in a conversation partner program gained substantial knowledge in understanding global perspectives and in developing interpersonal relationships. Working with international students has an added layer of benefit for future ESL teachers because it gives them an opportunity to learn cultural characteristics of their future students and to have the opportunity to reflect on how people learn English as a second language. In a survey with 143 junior high/middle school mainstream teachers, Youngs and Youngs (2001) discovered that exposure to cultural diversity underlies positive ESL-related attitudes among these teachers. It was thus recommended that all pre-service and in-service teachers have increased opportunities for exposure to cultural diversity. Though by virtue of choosing TESOL as their future profession, pre-service ESL teachers hold positive attitudes towards ELLs; contact with ELLs along with reflections on that contact helps fine tune perceptions and dispel stereotypes that they may subconsciously hold. Social contact theory states that contact, especially among status equals expecting prolonged interaction, will reduce prejudicial or negative attitudes towards groups culturally different from one’s own (Taylor, Peplau, & Sears, 1997).

Participants There were nine pre-service teachers enrolled in the class, all female, white, middle class, and in their 20s. Although most

195

of the students had experience abroad, none had stayed in a foreign country for an extended period of time. In other words, their experience abroad was not comparable to the life experience of ESL learners in the U.S. Although living abroad could help raise global awareness and create a better understanding of ESL learners’ situation, most pre-service teachers do not do so because of financial and time constraints. The conversation partner project therefore provided an affordable on-campus alternative to experience abroad.

Conversation Partners There were also nine conversation partners who were all ESL learners ranging from late teens to early 40s. Their countries of origin included: Chile, Puerto Rico, Turkey, Spain, and the Dominican Republic. All of them were undergraduate students at the time the project was carried out.

Data Collection 1. As part of the course, students enrolled in Theoretical Foundations of Teaching ESL were required to meet with their conversation partners one-on-one every week and turn in a journal entry every other week. The topics for the journal entries were assigned according to the content of the course covered in class. The five topics assigned were the following: 1. Introduce your partner and talk about the experience you have had (if any) with ESL learners.

196

2. Talk about personality, learning styles, and strategies as well as their influence on language learning. 3. Learn about your partner’s culture and talk about the influence of culture on language learning. 4. Learn about your partner’s first language and talk about how it influences the learning of the second or third language. 5. Exchange with your partner foreign language teaching methods you have experienced and talk about what methods you would like to use in your future career. The purpose of these journals was for pre-service teachers to reflect upon their experiences in order to go beyond anecdotal evidence to better analyze their experiences.

Results The following themes emerged from an analysis of the journals:

Developing a Global Perspective Meeting a conversation partner from another country definitely broadened the horizon of the students in the class. During the short semester, they learned not only about another culture, but also about how U.S. culture is viewed by an outsider. In short, the students were developing a more global perspective. A common topic that everyone talked about is stereotypes: stereotypes that people in the U.S. have towards other

197

cultures as well as those about American people. One student believed that Puerto Ricans had large families and learned that though it was generally true, Puerto Ricans nowadays have smaller families, which parallels what is happening in the U.S. One Spanish major assumed that most people living in South America would be able to communicate with each other because Spanish was their native language, but she was surprised to find out that this was not always the case. In addition, pre-service teachers also remarked that they had fun learning about their partners’ cultures and were now more confident in their approach to other cultures. Students were surprised to learn from their conversation partners how other cultures see Americans. One German student commented that “you Americans sure like big parties”; a Turkish student was shocked to see college students wearing pajamas to class and concluded (along with other observations) that U.S. culture was much more informal than Turkish culture. The city where the university is located is fairly small, with limited bus service. Pre-service teachers learned that international students without personal cars found it difficult to have to depend on others for transportation. Comments from their partners about American people were not necessarily negative, but they were pertinent because they gave the students another angle from which to observe their own culture—from an ESL learner’s perspective. This particular angle painted a whole new picture for them, making them aware of what they take for granted and helping them

198

really understand the scope of difficulties an ESL learner faces. Pre-service teachers found many differences between their partner’s culture and their own, but most of them found the differences new and exciting. Moreover, all of them emphasized that they found they had more things in common than they had imagined. This recurring theme appeared in almost every single entry from comments made by the pre-service teachers as well as their partners. Here is a summary of their general attitudes based on the remarks of one of the pre-service teachers: What I have gathered from this conversation is that we have a lot more in common than I ever thought we would. When you meet someone from a different culture, you tend to believe you are more different than similar. I am glad that we have found so many things to talk about and laugh about. This helps me to believe that even though language may be a barrier, whenever I work with ESL students, I can always find some similarities to communicate with. This gives me hope that this job may not be as hard as I once thought it would.

Understanding ESL Learners and Putting Theory into Practice Talking with their conversation partners, especially on topics assigned by the instructor, helped pre-service teachers better understand pedagogical theories discussed in class. Hands-on experience with their partners created a perfect environment for them to make sense of language acquisition theories. While conversing, many of them noted that the theories

199

discussed in class did explain a lot of their observations. Conversation partners presented pre-service teachers with living examples of the influence of a learner’s first language, personality, motivation, etc. More importantly, pre-service teachers finally realized that ESL learners are not a homogenous group, but unique individuals with their own personalities, some of which might be masked by their limited English proficiency. One pre-service teacher had known her partner for a year, and although she thought her partner was a shy person in that first year, the following year, her partner showed an outgoing identity, with improved English proficiency and confidence. Another student noted that her partner did not want to speak up in class even when he knew the answers or had ideas because of lack of confidence in his English proficiency. Pre-service teachers showed empathy when their partners told them about the difficulties they experienced. One pre-service teacher was shocked to hear that her partner’s high school classmates suspected that he had received good grades because his ESL teacher had helped him in exams. Pre-service teachers also exchanged language learning strategies with their partners. Although there were many strategies that both used, a lot of them were surprised that their partners had never heard of flash cards.

Developing Teaching Skills Teaching, like many other skills, can only be improved by doing. Though pre-service teachers were not teaching or even tutoring their partners, reflecting on their conversations with 200

their partners made them aware of many seemingly self-explanatory teaching techniques and cultural nuances. After learning that although Puerto Ricans celebrate Christmas and Easter, they do not have Christmas trees or Easter eggs as these holidays are still considered religious celebrations, one student remarked that “as a teacher, I have to be aware of the fact that my students have beliefs, traditions and customs that may be unlike mine.” Another student noted that she had to speak slowly or change how she said certain sentences in order for her partner to understand.

Discussion The results gathered from the data suggest that both projects had a positive impact on pre-service teachers. The majority of students commented that the practical component was the most beneficial aspect of the two courses. There were, of course, areas that needed improvement. All of the pre-service teachers in both courses suggested that the practical component should continue in the future, but they also mentioned some limitations. The biggest challenge was difficulty in scheduling. Because tutoring and conversations with partners were done outside of course time, pre-service teachers needed to find time on their own to carry out their lesson plans or meet with their conversation partners. For the tutoring project, an added problem is that the pre-service teachers’ schedule had to fit with the ESL teachers’ and that of the ESL learners. A possible solution to this problem is to schedule the project as an after-school

201

program so that it is less intrusive to the regular ESL classes in the local schools, and pre-service teachers can have more quality time with their ESL partners. For the conversation partner project, the instructor could collaborate with the office of International Students on campus to organize regular meetings and/or outings involving international students and domestic students. Another problem was the scarcity of ESL students in local schools. The area where the university is situated has a very limited ESL student population receiving individual pull-out instruction sessions. Some of the pre-service teachers preferred a classroom teaching environment closer to their future teaching experiences. Choosing an adjacent school district with a larger ESL population may be a better choice in the future. A word of caution in interpreting the results of the two projects presented here is in order. We cannot expect students to fully internalize the theories or to be culturally competent after one or two projects. What is more, not all students gained the same amount of awareness. Although most students engaged in reflective learning which led to personal and professional development, some others, for a variety of reasons, had difficulty questioning their previous beliefs. One or 2 semesters of inquiry will not dramatically change students’ views. In fact, this change in awareness among pre-service teachers is not necessarily immediate or complete (Freeman, 1989). Teacher educators only serve to initiate changes by bringing to surface their students’ subconsciously held beliefs about language teaching, by encouraging reflective learning and teaching, and by connecting teachers with their future students. The ultimate goal is to bring 202

pre-service teachers closer to the reality of their career which will eventually lead to a successful transition from teacher preparation to teaching in classrooms. As Johnson (2006, p. 242) stated, praxis will occur “only when teachers have multiple opportunities to connect their ways of knowing to theory.…” The two projects presented in this chapter are first steps in the right direction in offering multiple opportunities for pre-service teachers to internalize the content learned in teacher preparation programs.

Conclusion Integrating authentic practice into courses in teacher training helps bridge the gaps between the following pairs: theory and practice, pre-service teachers and ESL students, pre-service teachers’ perception of teaching and reality, knowing and doing. The positive effects of the two projects manifest themselves not only through the specific techniques and skills of teaching learned throughout the semester, but also, and more importantly, in changing the awareness and attitude of pre-service teachers towards teaching and towards ESL students. The change in awareness and attitude does not necessarily mean a change from negative to positive, but rather a change in quality. All TESOL majors decided to be ESL teachers before taking the courses because they were passionate about the discipline, but it was the projects that reinforced to them what it means to be a good teacher and how to become one. A better understanding of ESL students and the ESL profession might just be the key to a successful career for pre-service ESL teachers. As the two projects illustrate, the practical component proves not only to have a place in a methods or theory course, but also to play an 203

essential role in connecting pre-service teachers with the real world. The sample size of the projects is too small to generalize, yet the results show that the inclusion of a practical component is highly recommended for improving the effectiveness of a course. The format of the component could vary depending on the specific circumstances, but the key is direct interactions between pre-service teachers and ESL students. The present study sheds light on methods and theory courses as well as on teacher training. A practical component echoes the need in teacher training for more authentic practice and offers a unique yet pertinent way to fulfill this demand. Its small scale helps avoid the extensive coordination and cost of establishing a PDS (Professional Development School) or other larger-scale projects (see Johnson, 1996; Stoynoff, 1999) that also seek to integrate practice into the curriculum. In summary, this chapter proves that it is necessary and feasible to inject a practical component into college classrooms in general and into teacher training in particular whenever an opportunity presents itself. In addition, this chapter offers ways to investigate how pre-service teachers learn to teach and thus puts pre-service teachers at the center of teacher education. It complements the sociocultural shift in teacher education and offers practical means to connect universities to pre-service teachers’ future classrooms.

References Baldwin, S., Buchanan, A., & Rudisill, M. (2007). What teacher candidates learned about diversity, social justice, and

204

themselves from service-learning experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 315–327. Bartels, N. (2004). Comments on Robert Yates and Dennis Muchisky’s “On reconceptualizing teacher education.” Another reader reacts. Linguistics imperialism. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 128–133. Chamberlin, C. (2000). The knowledge base of teacher education: A conversation with Karen Johnson and Donald Freeman. TESOL Teacher Education Interest Section Newsletter, 15, 10–11. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007). Failing the practicum: Narrowing the gap between expectations and reality with reflective practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 193–201. Flowerdew, J. (1999). The practicum in L2 teacher education: A Hong Kong case study. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 141–145. Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 27–45. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (2004). Comments on Robert Yates and Dennis Muchisky’s “On Reconceptualizing Teacher Education.” Readers React. Common misconceptions about the Quiet Revolution. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 119–127.

205

Grossman, P. (1994). In pursuit of a dual agenda: Creating a middle level professional development school. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools (pp. 50–73). New York: Teachers College Press. Johnson, K. (1996). The role of theory in L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 765–771. Johnson, K. (2004). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257. Johnson, K. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59–81. Stoynoff, S. (1999). The TESOL practicum: An integrated model in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 145–151. Taylor, S.E., Peplau, L.A., & Sears, D.O. (1997). Social psychology (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Watzke, J. (2007). Foreign language pedagogical knowledge: Toward a developmental theory of beginning teacher practices. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 63–82. Wilson, A. (1993). Conversation partners: Helping students gain a global perspective through cross-cultural experiences. Theory Into Practice, 32, 21–26.

206

Yates, R., & Muchisky, D. (2003). On reconceptualizing teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 135–147. Youngs, C.S., & Youngs, G.A.J. (2001). Predicators of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 97–120.

207

6 Transformative Teacher Education in Action Preparing Pre-Service Teachers to Support English Language Learners Davi S. Reis

Introduction English Language Learners’ (ELLs) presence in U.S. mainstream classrooms continues to increase. Indeed, ELL enrollment in the country grew by 57% between 1995 and 2005, whereas the overall K–12 population remained relatively stable (Maxwell, 2009). The total estimated number of ELLs in the U.S. now surpasses five million (Viadero, 2009). Though the number of ELLs per state varies greatly, ELLs are found in all states throughout the U.S. (Batalova & McHugh, 2010) and, in 20 states, ELL enrollment has more than doubled between 1995 and 2005 (Maxwell, 2009). Elsewhere in the world, with increasing migration, teachers must be able to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students (Hawkins, 2011b, p. 1). Therefore, a major goal of teacher education programs today is to improve instruction for ELLs by preparing teacher candidates (TCs) to support them.

208

As an early-career scholar and beginning teacher educator, I am especially interested in understanding how teacher educators can, through course work, help to transform TCs’ long-held beliefs and attitudes regarding complex (though often oversimplified) concepts such as culture, language, race, diversity, social justice, power, and white privilege. Thus, this chapter aims to illustrate how Vygotskian sociocultural theory (SCT) has informed my instruction; to explore teacher education for social justice (Hawkins, 2011c) through a SCT lens; and to invite other teacher educators to reflect on how SCT may be helpful in orienting their instruction.

Background and Context For the past three years I have worked at a small, private, and religiously-affiliated institution where social justice and diversity are key tenets of its mission. Although the university has indeed made great strides in enlisting more students, faculty, and staff from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, it still caters to a mostly suburban, middle to upper class contingent of local students from politically-conservative and European-American families. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of the TCs who enter our teacher education programs, and whom I encounter in my classes, comes from contexts “where the social discourse and the curriculum content have reinforced the ideology of power and privilege” (Hollins, 2011, p. 127). Working as a teacher educator in this context has presented many challenges, which in turn have engendered instructional opportunities and goals1.

209

The course upon which this chapter is based was created in response to a state mandate requiring that all state-certified teachers be prepared to instructionally support ELLs in mainstream classrooms. As per this mandate, the course goals and objectives have been closely aligned with five domains (language, culture, standards-based instruction, assessment, and professionalism) and specific competencies within these domains. Although TCs must acquire knowledge and develop skills in all five domains, the focus of this chapter is on professional dispositions. I believe that knowledge and skills are only useful to TCs to the extent that they embrace teaching as a political act (Freire, 1970) with tangible consequences for their students and the communities in which they teach. Thus, my instructional goals include: 1. Impacting TCs’ thinking in relation to diversity and difference so that: 1. Their understanding of key concepts (e.g., language and culture) are based on scientific concepts (Karpov, 2003) and not on unexamined assumptions; and 2. They begin to understand the teaching of ELLs as an activity situated in a larger milieu of sociopolitical, economic, familial, and educational contexts, with many factors and forces setting “literacy agendas” for ELLs in public schools (McKay, 1993). 2. Moving TCs beyond their observation (Lortie, 1975); and

210

apprenticeship

of

3. Supporting TCs in taking on a professional identity as teachers for social justice. Each of these goals is met with the following challenges, respectively: 1. Discussions around diversity and difference often enter the territory of political ideologies and public controversies (e.g., ‘English-Only’ efforts). Yet, many TCs enter the course with a view of teaching as an apolitical activity, one that can be carried out from a technical standpoint without reference to the broader sociocultural and socio-political realities around them. At this point in their professional development, the connections between power, language, culture, literacy, and schooling are tentative at best. 2. TCs often conceptualize ELL instruction as nothing more than good instruction (the “common-sense” ideology; de Jong & Harper, 2010). This is problematic because their understanding of ‘good instruction’ is likely based on their own observations and experiences as students themselves (Lortie, 1975), rather than on knowledge about the specific needs and strengths of ELLs. 3. Developing a professional identity is a long and ongoing process. In the context of a semester-long course, it would be unreasonable to expect marked identity shifts. Nonetheless, it is possible to support this process in meaningful enough ways so as to move it along.

211

Literature Review Professional Dispositions What (language) teachers need to know and be able to do for ELLs is comprised of both theoretical and practical knowledge, as well as of beliefs and attitudes towards their role as educators and towards their students as learners (Freeman & Johnson, 1998). This repertoire is typically sliced into three main areas: knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Johnson, 2009). Although these areas intersect in many complex ways, I focus on dispositions as a critical element of mainstream teachers’ knowledge base and understand them as an amalgam of beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and inclinations regarding language, culture, difference and diversity, and the teaching of culturally and linguistically diverse students in mainstream and English-dominant instructional settings.

Teacher Education for Social Justice In line with the work of progressive thinkers (e.g., Dewey, Freire, and Giroux), I view teaching as a tool for engendering and sustaining social change and, therefore, as a political act of great consequence. Insofar as the teaching of ELLs in the U.S. is concerned, this is an especially important point, as such teaching is embedded in controversial sociopolitical issues (e.g., immigration), conflicting attitudes towards cultural and linguistic diversity, and unexamined assumptions about language, culture, and language acquisition. In this light, teachers and teacher educators are encouraged to adopt a stance towards teaching that is ‘culturally and linguistically responsive’ to their students (Hawkins, 2011b, p. 2). Teacher 212

educators who adopt this perspective often identify with what has been termed Social Justice Teacher Education (SJTE; Hawkins, 2011c; Zeichner, 2011). This paradigm of research and practice “not only shifts understandings of language learning, teaching and usage, acknowledges inequities in educational landscapes and envisions more just social futures, but redefines the roles of teachers in effecting change” (Hawkins, 2011b, p. 2). Teaching for social justice involves complex processes that demand willingness, preparation, and skill. Zeichner (2011, p. 15) has emphasized several practices for preparing linguistically and culturally competent teachers. Four such practices are of particular significance for teacher preparation programs: • – Guiding TCs in situating themselves as cultural beings in the larger sociocultural milieu; • – Encouraging TCs to examine their own attitudes and beliefs regarding others who are linguistically and culturally different; • – Emphasizing the need for holding high expectations of all students; and • – Helping TCs learn about their students and the communities where they live and use this knowledge to design responsive curriculum and instruction. Although desirable, such practices present a challenge to teacher educators in which stand-alone courses on teaching diverse students do not include or require an experiential component.

213

Theoretical Framework Although most of the TCs I have encountered generally learn how to mimic the current educational discourses around diversity, social justice, and multi-cultural education, deeper probing often reveals naïve and unchallenged views of what these concepts mean to them and how they may impact their future teaching. So how can teacher educators approach the challenging and intricate task of positively affecting teachers’ attitudes about teaching for diversity and social justice? I believe SCT can provide an especially useful framework for conceptualizing the job of teacher educators in preparing TCs for embracing and supporting ELLs. As a theory of the development of the mind, SCT addresses how social processes drive psychological development in a dialectical fashion (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1985). Mediation, the zone of proximal development (ZPD), scientific concepts, internalization, and identity formation are useful concepts in understanding teacher preparation regarding the teaching of ELLs. In a Vygotskian light, mediation is the process through which individuals gain control over their thoughts and actions (e.g., planning and executing a project) through the use of physical or psychological tools (e.g., a calculator or an analogy, respectively). In this chapter, mediation can be understood as the process through which TCs are successfully taught how to ‘think’ (e.g., how to examine their beliefs in light of facts) and how to ‘act’ (e.g., to organize instruction) based on scientific concepts (Johnson, 2009; Karpov, 2003) rather than unexamined assumptions. Mediation is successful when a person’s ability to think or act in certain ways can move

214

from the interpsychological plane to the intrapsychological one. That is, they are able to do by themselves what they could only previously have done with the help of a more expert other. This metaphorical space representing what one can do with the assistance of another and with the goal of independent functioning is referred to as one’s ZPD (Chaiklin, 2003). The ZPD, then, is the ‘learning zone’ where successful learning and internalization (the process through which what is intermental becomes intramental and can then be recontextualized in other situations by the learner) can take place (Johnson, 2009). Finally, identify formation entails the mediated process of internalizing different ways of thinking, being, and feeling, which, melded with one’s personality and idiosyncrasies, can give rise to different subjectivities (see Reis, 2008). Identity has been used to understand how TCs come to see themselves as teachers as they progress in their teacher education programs and first few years of teaching (Alsup, 2006). The development of a professional identity is a key component of learning to teach, yet one that is taken for granted as a natural by-product of learning how to teach. Based on Vygotsky’s work, Van Huizen, Van Oers, and Wubbels (2005) have put forth a framework comprised of six basic guiding principles for understanding and supporting the development of pre-service teachers (i.e., “a Vygotskian paradigm for teacher education,” pp. 273–285). In this framework, [c]ompetence is no longer the primary target of a teacher-education program, but is defined and developed in relation to an image of ‘good’ teaching that invites 215

commitment. Personal motivation and development are related to a position in an activity context, to a commitment to the ideal forms inspiring this activity, and to the identity of the actor as a participant in this activity (Wenger, 1998). Reflection and inquiry are focused on the continuing harmonization of action and meaning. (p. 276). Next, I briefly review each of this framework’s principles and, later, discuss my own instruction in light of them. 1. Learning through participation: The professional development of TCs occurs through meaningful participation in communities of practice. Thus, bridging the distance between TCs’ experiences as college students with their future work and role as teachers must involve an engagement with other educators in academic and professional contexts. This becomes possible when TCs start to learn with, and not just from, other educators by participating in a teacher education program. 2. Orientation towards ideal forms: Ideal forms comprise the values, goals, and best practices in the communities of practice TCs are attempting to gain entrance to (see Froumin, 1995, cited in Van Huizen et al., 2005). Ideal forms serve not only as “criteria of competence” (Van Huizen et al., 2005, p. 274), but as commitments of professional practice and demeanor (i.e., dispositions). They “are based on the central cultural meanings (values, goals) attached to the core activities in an activity system” (p. 274). 3. Attuning a public standard to personal motives: Part of becoming a teacher entails reconciling ‘ideal forms’ with 216

one’s own conceptualization of and motives for teaching. In this light, TCs need systematic opportunities to critically reflect on, appropriate, and personalize ideal forms. Essentially, TCs need the meditational spaces where they can identify and link personally-relevant motives for teaching and find ways through which such motives and meanings can be publicly expressed in their community of practice. 4. Interaction between performance and assignment of meaning: Another key principle in Van Huizen et al.’s (2005) framework is the need to help TCs connect theory and practice. It is vital that TCs consider the meanings behind their actions and attempt to connect what they think with what they do as teachers. This can be done by observing, planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction in light of theory and best practices. 5. Learning from emotional experiences: For most TCs, the prospect of teaching ELLs in the future is a source of pronounced anxiety (Jurchan & Morano, 2010). In a Vygotskian light, emotions are an integral part of mental development, as are teachers’ personal and professional subjectivities. As such, teachers’ feelings about their future roles and about ELLs themselves must be considered as they grow and develop personally and professionally. Their emotions must be both acknowledged and used as a source of learning (as a way of integrating their personality and identity). 6. Development of a professional identity: In line with the present argument that professional identity development is a key part of preparing teachers to support ELLs, and as presented in Van Huizen et al.’s (2005) original discussion, I 217

discuss each of the steps involved in supporting TCs’ professional identity development below. 6.1.Presenting an orientation basis: Although van Huizen et al. (2005) address this principle in relation to an entire teacher education program, its main idea is relevant for any individual course in such a program. According to this principle, teacher educators must orient TCs to how the course and/or program is structured, providing them with a roadmap that initially orients and later assesses their progress in light of the course or program objectives. 6.2.Creating awareness of pre-conceptions: Using ideal forms as a point of departure, TCs must be supported (i.e., mediated) in identifying, reflecting on, and confronting their pre-conceptions and common-sense assumptions about teaching and diversity. In essence, teacher educators must create an instructional, mediational space where TCs can reflect on, express, and begin to deconstruct their unexamined beliefs about their future role as teachers. This type of self-awareness can prompt the linking of private and public meanings assigned to teaching. 6.3.Providing for learning in cycles: TCs also need the opportunity to repeatedly and cyclically work on connecting theory and practice as well as private and public meanings assigned to teaching. Therefore, actual teaching performances (i.e., practice) must be preceded and followed by reflection based on ideal forms. 6.4.Providing for learning through exchange and co-operation: Social practice and interaction are at the heart of 218

SCT. As identities are socially constructed and enacted, TCs need to negotiate meanings and collaborate with fellow educators to try out (i.e., perform) and claim their own professional voice. 6.5.Encouraging trainees to make choices: In SCT, identities are an ongoing fusion of broader, publicly-available ways of being, and one’s idiosyncratic and changing characteristics (Reis, 2008). Thus, teacher education programs must offer TCs opportunities to claim and assert their own unique professional subjectivities within the broader context of ideal forms and professional expectations. Each TC should be encouraged and supported in making choices that are both personally meaningful and publicly accepted (choices that are professionally sanctioned and that honor their own unique style of teaching and interacting with students). 6.6.Providing for participation in developmental activities: In developing their professional identity, TCs benefit from even marginal participation in professional activities geared towards the development and innovation of both theory/ meaning and practice/action. As such, the idea of ‘best methods’ should be critically examined as an opportunity for TCs to understand theory and practice as mutually informed. 6.7.Supporting trainees in recognizing and overcoming resistances: As most TCs enter teacher education programs with unexamined and unchallenged assumptions about teaching and about students, their active engagement in recognizing their own resistance to supporting ELLs is pivotal in overcoming such resistance. At times, TCs’ emerging professional identities will inevitably be at odds with their personal and social 219

identities. If guided and supported, such clashing of subjectivities can enable TCs to identify and reconcile conflicting understandings of teaching. 6.8.Using clinical supervision: Clinical supervision allows for the ‘harmonization’ of TCs’ subjectivities as individuals, professionals, and participants in a specific professional context. During clinical supervision, TCs’ emotions should be explored as a means of reconciling private and public views of teaching. Next, I explain how the principles outlined previously have guided my own instruction.

Transformative Teacher Education in Action To contextualize the theoretical framework outlined above, I briefly introduce various course assignments and activities I have used to promote the types of experiences already discussed. Though these assignments and activities have been fine-tuned and used in different combinations in the past three years, they essentially include2: 1. A short autobiography meant to aid TCs exploration of their own literacy history in light of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds; 2. A multi-cultural interview providing TCs with a structured opportunity to meet and interact with someone from a different cultural and linguistic background;

220

3. Video-based classroom observations used to broaden TCs understanding of ESL instruction and culturally and linguistically diverse students in various instructional settings (Online English Language Center: Shaping the way we teach, 2012); 4. Written reactions to select autobiographical works and narratives written by minorities and/or educators who have experienced and reflected on teaching diverse student populations: Hunger of Memory (Rodriguez, 1982), Lost in Translation (Hoffman, 1989), White Teacher (Paley, 1979), The Woman Warrior (Kingston, 1989), The House on Mango Street (Cisneros, 1991); 5. An instructional modifications project (or IMP) entailing the selection and instructional modification of a thematic unit for ELLs; 6. A video-taped teaching simulation accompanied by a written reflection focusing on what the simulation has helped TCs to realize or better understand about teaching ELLs; 7. Journal entries on textbook readings, including key quotes and passages (see Díaz-Rico, 2012); 8. Targeted reflections on each of the course domains (i.e., language, culture, standards-based instruction, assessment, and professionalism); 9. Student-led discussions around assigned readings (see Commins & Miramontes, 2005; Díaz-Rico, 2012); 10. Online and face-to-face discussions based on: • – Online videos showcasing interviews and discussions among experts on ESL instruction and literacy (see ¡Colorín

221

• •

•

•

Colorado! Helping children read… and succeed!, 2012); Cartoons on language, culture, education, immigration, bilingualism, ELLs, and other topics; – Video series on language, culture, and diversity, such as Do You Speak American? (Cran et al., 2005); and Race: The Power of an Illusion (Pounder et al., 2003); – Case studies involving ELL instruction (see Commins & Miramontes, 2005) to provide TCs with an opportunity to apply knowledge gained through course work, practice their emerging skills, and shift attitudes towards ELLs (Jurchan & Morano, 2010); and – Documentaries and movies dealing with immigration (e.g., The Other Side of Immigration, Germano, 2010), bilingual education (e.g., Speaking in Tongues, Jarmel & Schneider, 2010), and the struggles of immigrants (e.g., God Grew Tired of Us, Dau & Sweeney, 2007).

Next, for each of Van Huizen et al.’s (2005) guiding principles, I explain how the previously-mentioned tasks align with an SCT view of learning to teach, while mitigating the limits imposed by a 3-credit-hour course with no experiential component. 1. Learning through participation: In addition to assuming their social identity as college students, I encourage my TCs to think of the course as a professional development activity. I organize small-group and whole-class discussions, 222

presentations, and roundtable-type discussions to promote professional interactions among course participants. Whenever possible, I make use of my own professional experiences as a former ESL teacher as a way to engender a ZPD and mediate TCs’ thinking about the topics at hand. Despite the obvious advantages of inviting and bringing in ESL teachers and paraprofessionals from the local community, former and current ELLs and their parents, and community members, this can be logistically difficult. To mitigate this, I have used online videos and webcasts of ESL professionals discussing issues pertaining to the education of ELLs. Viewing and discussing such videos with TCs introduces them to a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) which, until then, is unfamiliar to them. 2. Orientation towards ideal forms: Through the types of socialization practices and ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991) described earlier, I attempt to clarify and model to TCs the professionally sanctioned and currently accepted instructional goals, practices, and values (or ‘ideal forms’) in the teaching of ELLs. Specifically, course readings and objectives accompanied by targeted reflections on specific domains (e.g., language), and video-based classroom observations provide TCs with the ‘ideal forms’ of instruction for ELLs. Put differently, these ideal forms are the scientific concepts (Karpov, 2003) comprising the knowledge base needed for teaching ELLs. In addition, I attempt to frame each of the course’s domains and objectives as areas that require not only knowledge and skill, but also dispositional commitment. For example, I emphasize that teaching ELLs also entails advocating on their behalf. Thus, TCs participating in my 223

course are exposed to what is expected of them in terms of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. 3. Attuning a public standard to personal motives: Several of the course requirements offer TCs an opportunity to personalize the course domains and objectives. Organizing and structuring course activities around meaningful discussions has, I believe, helped TCs to make important connections between their own backgrounds and what I expect them to be able to do for ELLs. At the very least, such discussions strategically mediate TCs understanding of what is involved in teaching ELLs. Regarding specific assignments, all written reflections and journal entries, along with the cultural autobiography, serve as ways to connect the domains and objectives to their own cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Regarding activities, discussions around readings and movies/documentaries also allow TCs to attune course objectives to their own motives. Together, assignments and activities give TCs an opportunity to identify areas of dissonance between public standards or best practices and personal motivations for teaching. 4. Interaction between performance and assignment of meaning: Two main assignments encourage TCs to perform the role of a teacher: the IMP and the teaching simulation (see earlier descriptions). In enabling TCs to make connections between theory (i.e., scientific concepts) and practice, these assignments allow them to briefly experience the responsibilities, challenges, and rewards of working with ELLs. In developing a professional identity as a teacher for social justice, ‘performing’ the role of the teacher in a mediated space with the guidance of an expert other (i.e., the teacher educator) is a necessary step. 224

5. Learning from emotional experiences: Often, especially when addressing language and culture with respect to educational diversity, TCs express strong emotions ranging from frustration, to anger, to resistance. For some, the mandatory nature of the course becomes a source of cynicism even before stepping into my classroom. Because dispositions involve a complex relationship between cognition and affect, one of the main goals of the course is to carefully and strategically destabilize TCs’ unexamined beliefs and feelings regarding their role as agents of social change. This destabilization is achieved mainly by carrying out the multi-cultural interview, writing their own cultural and linguistic autobiographies, and viewing and discussing documentaries on the challenges faced by immigrants and their families while living in an English-dominant environment. Without emotionally-meaningful reflection, it is unlikely that TCs’ subjectivities will be changed or broadened in any lasting and significant way. 6. Development of a professional identity: 6.1.Presenting an orientation basis: As mentioned, the course objectives, framed around the state-mandated domains and competencies, serve as goalposts for instruction and experiences in the classrooms. Unsurprisingly, in the beginning of the course, TCs usually expect most of the course to be about ‘best strategies’ for teaching ELLs. Therefore, during the first class, they are informed that the course involves the exploration of systematic approaches to modifying instruction for ELLs and includes in-depth discussions on scientific definitions of language, culture, and diversity. I emphasize that rather than quick fixes, 225

supporting ELLs entails a concerted effort to learn specific knowledge, skills, and, critically, dispositions. From a Vygotskian perspective on transformation, this type of orientation to the course is pivotal if a ZPD is to be mutually created and sustained. 6.2.Creating awareness of pre-conceptions: Many of the course activities and assignments support this step. For example, through various discussion prompts, I invite TCs to first express, and then challenge, their own thinking regarding ELLs and their instruction. Extended discussions around language and culture later create opportunities for TCs to engage in the type of self-awareness work that is needed from them. One of the most rewarding aspects of teaching this course is witnessing TCs engage in honest, emotionally-charged, and public conversations about their beliefs and attitudes towards the course topics. From a SCT perspective, this type of meaningful interaction can potentially mediate one’s cognition and emotions into increased awareness and understanding. 6.3.Providing for learning in cycles: Most class sessions involve both practical and theoretical elements. The final project (IMP) is broken up into smaller segments to allow TCs to link theory and practice and to theorize their own understanding of “good practice” throughout the semester. Thus, learning in the course is structured to allow TCs to orient themselves to their future roles, learn scientific concepts, apply them (even if in a limited fashion), and later return to issues of theory. Pre-service 226

teachers can then begin to conceptualize theory and practice as dialectically related. 6.4.Providing for learning through exchange and co-operation: Although TCs have very limited contact and collaboration with ESL teachers and/or mainstream teachers of ELLs, I capitalize on their exchanges with me and peers who have either taught ELLs, been ELLs themselves (though a rare occurrence), and/or whose K–12 peers included ELLs. In addition, TCs are arranged in various configurations for specific tasks and discussions, especially by grade level and content area. Additionally, the final project is done in cooperative groups requiring TCs to work closely with one another to complete the project and prepare for the teaching simulation (a group effort). Finally, TCs must cooperate with the person(s) they interview for the multi-cultural interview assignment. In short, the course activities encourage TCs to conceptualize the teaching of ELLs as a social practice that has been taking place around them, and of which they are soon to become a part. 6.5.Encouraging trainees to make choices: Throughout the semester, to dispel the myth of the ‘best method’ for teaching ELLs, I encourage TCs to identify ways of organizing and implementing instruction and to discuss their pros and cons. The IMP assignment, for example, lets TCs brainstorm and design a number of instructional modifications, capitalizing on their preferred ways of planning and teaching. Similarly, during discussions around the case studies, I invite 227

TCs to brainstorm various acceptable solutions to the dilemma(s) posed and to provide a rationale for their preferred course of action. Through these activities, TCs have an opportunity to make choices regarding how they can support ELLs and to connect their choices to personal motives. 6.6.Providing for participation in developmental activities: During the multi-cultural interview task, TCs may be paired with international students at the university’s ESL program. In exchange for the opportunity to interview students, TCs help them with their own ESL classes and provide feedback on the experience. This feedback is used for improving both the assignment and the ESL courses. In addition, TCs are invited to attend and participate in local conferences on ESL instruction. These experiences as participants in ESL-related activities capitalize on communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and encourage TCs to think of themselves as professionals who are part of a larger community working to support ELLs. 6.7.Supporting trainees in recognizing and overcoming resistances: One of the key goals for the course is to help TCs to eventually realize that their stated intention to teach all children to the best of their capabilities will be met with resistance. This resistance often results from conflicting views and beliefs on teaching, diversity, and social justice. Several of the course’s assignments and activities are intentional opportunities for TCs to identify and overcome such resistance. The written reflections and 228

class discussions based on readings and media are the most productive when it comes to making such conflicting views visible to TCs. Conversations around such conflicting views then become a point of departure for reconciling them. 6.8.Using clinical supervision: Although unofficially, I often attempt to incorporate TCs’ field experiences from other courses (and their own experiences with ELLs and ELL instruction that they may have had as students themselves) into class discussions, so long as they are helpful in focusing their attention on the instruction of ELLs. Finally, teaching simulations offer yet another opportunity to provide a modified type of clinical supervision where none is formally made possible. In short, I look for ways to productively guide TCs in their emerging role as teachers for ELLs in the absence of a field experience.

Implications and Recommendations The learning of English literacy by ELLs is neither an entirely individual nor societal effort, but both. Thus, the instruction of ELLs by mainstream teachers must be understood as embedded in broader sociocultural and sociopolitical milieus. The challenges faced by teacher educators and the TCs they instruct must be seen through a series of lenses which include both the individual and the larger context in which they exist, as well as the interactions between them. An important point arising from this discussion is that TCs’ understanding of language and culture, and the intrinsic

229

connections and interplay between the two, must go beyond everyday, unscientific conceptualizations of these constructs. Both language and culture, or what Agar (1994) has termed ‘languaculture,’ play a key role in teacher preparation. By better understanding how to challenge TCs’ initial views on language and culture and strategically mediating (Wertsch, 1998) their thinking into more complex, scientific understandings of these concepts, teacher educators can better support teaching for social justice. Put differently, we must enable TCs to look at (rather than through) language and culture as organizing principles. Regarding pedagogical practices, the call for the centrality of language (as a scientific concept) in preparing teachers for diversity (Ball & Tyson, 2011) is warranted because teachers must realize the unique role that language and linguistic awareness play in the teaching/learning process. Yet, TCs often struggle to realize the role of language for their own content areas (e.g., knowing how to read a mathematics equation or how to go about supporting one’s opinion). No other group of students makes this need more evident than ELLs. Similarly, if unchallenged, everyday conceptualizations of culture (e.g., as comprised of the ‘visible’ only) prevent teachers from making sense of their ELLs’ thinking, discourse, and behavior as culturally and linguistically dependent. Without a clear focus on how language and culture interact with learning and literacy, TCs are at a major disadvantage when supporting ELLs. Similarly, much research is still needed to highlight the processes through which TCs can internalize scientific concepts (Karpov, 2003) around language and culture and how this

230

internalization then informs practice and identity development later on. In terms of program design, one of the implications from this discussion is that TCs need more than a collection of courses strung together in order to develop and claim a professional identity as teachers. To promote the types of experiences discussed here at the programmatic level, a much higher level of program cohesion is needed (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2011). For example, without a field experience component to the course, some of what is learned in the classroom cannot be contextualized against the backdrop of real ELLs in actual classrooms and schools. Until teacher education programs embrace an approach that embeds specialized training into all relevant courses and/or find ways to give teachers hands-on opportunities to interact with ELLs and ESL teachers, teacher educators must make the best of the opportunities they do have to prepare teachers for such challenging work.

Conclusion Admittedly, there is only so much that can be accomplished and learned during a semester-long course (Hawkins, 2011a). Yet, I believe that Vygotskian SCT can support our efforts to prepare qualified teachers for the challenges and opportunities of teaching diverse learners. By understanding how professional identities are forged in and through social practices, teacher educators “become more conscious of their own identities and more intentionally direct the contours of their own professional growth” (Olsen, 2011, p. 270). I hope to have taken a small step in that direction and that this chapter will encourage other teacher

231

educators to do the same. Finally, it is easy to forget that our TCs are diverse too, regardless of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. We must be careful not to neglect our TCs as “teacher educators who claim to work for social justice need to model the same kind of caring, compassionate and responsive relationships with their TCs as they hope to foster in P–12 classrooms” (Zeichner, 2011, p. 15).

Notes 1. As a gay man from Brazil who speaks English as a second language, I am not the “white, monolingual, and middle class” (Ladson-Billings, 2011, p. 391) teacher educator that my students might have expected. Although my background is generally an asset in my teaching context, sometimes it also makes it challenging to build rapport with some of my students. 2. Please contact the author for a copy of the syllabus and/or other resources discussed in the chapter.

References Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow. Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Athanases, S.A., & de Oliveira, L.C. (2011). Toward program-wide coherence in preparing teachers to teach and 232

advocate for English language learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 195–215). New York: Routledge. Ball, A., & Tyson, C. (2011). Preparing teachers for diversity in the twenty-first century. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 399–416). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2010). States and districts with the highest number and share of English language learners. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S. Ageyev, & S.M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cisneros, S. (1991). The house on Mango Street. New York: Vintage Books. ¡Colorín Colorado! Helping children read… and succeed! (2012). http://www.colorincolorado.org/ Commins, L.N., & Miramontes, O.B. (2005). Linguistic diversity and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cran, W., Buchanan, C., Macneil, R., Cassidy, O., Palmer, A., Frost, J., & Foss, P. (2005). Do you speak American? Episode 1. Princeton, NJ: Films for the Humanities & Sciences.

233

Dau, J. B., & Sweeney, M. S. (2007). God grew tired of us. Washington, DC: National Geographic. de Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2010). Is ESL just good teaching? Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Language Teacher Education. Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. Díaz-Rico, L.T. (2012). A course for teaching English learners (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Germano, R. (Writer) & R. Germano (Director). (2010). The Other Side of Immigration [DVD]. In R. G. Films (Producer). Giroux, H.A. (1985). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. Social Education, 49(5), 376–379. Hawkins, M. (2011a). Dialogic determination: Constructing a social justice discourse in language teacher education. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Social justice language teacher education (pp. 102–123). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

234

Hawkins, M. (2011b). Introduction. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Social justice language teacher education (pp. 1–6). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hawkins, M. (Ed.). (2011c). Social justice language teacher education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hoffman, E. (1989). Lost in translation. A life in a new language. New York: Dutton. Hollins, E. (2011). The meaning of culture in learning to teach: The power of socialization and identity formation. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 105–130). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Jarmel, M., Schneider, K., PatchWorks Films., Independent Television Service., Center for Asian American Media., Latino Public Broadcasting (Firm), & Copyright Collection (Library of Congress). (2010). Speaking in tongues (Multilingual ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: PatchWorks Productions. Johnson, K. (2009). Trends in second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 20–29). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jurchan, J., & Morano, T. (2010). The case study: Bringing real-world experience into the teacher preparation program. TESOL Journal, 1, 71–84.

235

Karpov, Y.V. (2003). Vygotsky’s doctrine of scientific concepts: Its role incontemporary education. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S. Ageyev, & S.M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 65–82). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kingston, M. (1989). The woman warrior: Memoirs of a girlhood among ghosts. New York: Vintage Books. Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Asking the right questions: A research agenda for studying diversity in teacher education. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 385–395). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Maxwell, L. (2009). Shifting landscape: Immigration transforms communities. Education Week, 28, 1–4. McKay, S.L. (1993). Agendas for second language literacy. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press. Olsen, B. (2011). I am large, I contain multitudes: Teacher identity as a useful frame for research, practice, and diversity in teacher education. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 257–273). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

236

Online English Language Center. (2012). Shaping the way we teach. http://oelp.uoregon.edu/shaping.html Paley, V.G. (1979). White teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pounder, C.C.H., Adelman, L., Cheng, J., Herbes-Sommers, C., Strain, T.H., Smith, L., & Ragazzi, C. (2003). Race: The power of an illusion. San Francisco, CA: California Newsreel. Reis, D.S. (2008). A Vygotskian perspective on non-native English-speaking teachers’ identity. NNEST Newsletter, 10(1), online at: http://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/ newsletters-other-publications/interest-section-newsletters/ nnest-newsletter/2011/10/27/ nnest-news-volume-10–1-(may-2008) Rodriguez, R. (1982). A hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriquez. Boston: Godine. van Huizen, P., van Oers, B., & Wubbels, T. (2005). A Vygotskian perspective on teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 267–290. Viadero, D. (2009). Delving deep: Research hones focus on ELLs. Education Week, 28, 3–4. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

237

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Zeichner, K. (2011). Embracing complexity and community in research on multicultural teacher education. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 329–337). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

238

Part III Beliefs, Expectations, and Negotiating a Professional Self

239

7 Teaching Spoken English in China The Relationship Between Beliefs and Characteristics of University EFL Teachers Christine C.M. Goh and Zan Chen

Introduction The spread of English as a language for communication is a key feature of our globalized world. Countries such as China, which experienced unprecedented socioeconomic development in the last three decades partly due to globalization, are increasingly concerned about its people’s ability to speak English well enough to compete internationally in all arenas where the use of English is still a dominant part of transnational communication. With increased mobility among its people in areas of work and studies within and beyond the country, English is now widely perceived to be “a bridge to the future” for both the country and the people (Jin & Cortazzi, 2002). This has led to many centralized initiatives aimed at improving the teaching of English, particularly the teaching of spoken English. Although these changes have been recognized to be significant in invigorating English language education in China, there is still relatively little understanding from 240

research on one of the most important agents of this change, namely the English language teachers who are entrusted with enacting these initiatives through their daily work in schools and colleges. In this chapter, we report a study that examined the beliefs that university EFL teachers have about teaching spoken English and consider how their beliefs may or may not be related to some main teacher characteristics. It is hoped that results of the study will offer insights for local initiatives that can support English language teachers in the important task of teaching spoken English in the new globalized landscape.

Background English language education in China has attracted unprecedented attention and huge amounts of investment from all stakeholders—the government, teachers, students, parents, and the Chinese public at large (G. Hu, 2003). The Ministry of Education (MOE) designated English as the primary foreign language in the national curriculum and made it a compulsory school subject from the third year of primary school to university. It also mandated that English language teaching should enable students to “gain basic knowledge of English and competence to use English for communication” (State Education Development Commission of China, 1992, p. 1). As part of this education reform, communicative language teaching (CLT), which is characterized by learning to communicate with the use of authentic language input and real-life tasks (Richards & Rogers, 2001), gained popularity nationwide. Many Chinese university students, however, could still barely communicate effectively in English even after the many years 241

of language learning (Dai, 2002; Liu & Dai, 2003). Their English proficiency still falls short of the needs generated by the country’s increasing commercial, technological, and cultural exchanges with other parts of the world. The role of teachers was also recognized to be crucial to the current ELT reform. Top-down efforts were made to wean teachers from traditional teaching methodologies such as the grammar-translation method and audiolingualism, which emphasize grammar and formal accuracy (G. Hu, 2005). In spite of this, the formal process of EFL teacher education and development has received relatively little attention. For example, university EFL teachers received no pre-service training for the important task of teaching English to college students (Y. Wu, 2001). The majority of these teachers are fresh graduates in English language and literature who have not been exposed to language learning theories and philosophies, and teaching methodology (Y. Wu, 2005; cf. Zhang, 2004). Although about 40% of the teachers graduated from teacher education universities (known locally as normal universities; Shu, 2004), the training that these teachers received was generally no different to those of teachers who graduated from other universities, because all the universities followed the same curriculum designed by the Ministry of Education which focused mainly on developing future teachers’ language proficiency and subject knowledge rather than language teaching and learning theories, and pedagogical content knowledge (Z. Wu & Lu, 2008; Zhang, 2004; Zhou, 2005). Many university EFL teachers therefore feel unprepared for teaching as they “became teachers overnight, i.e., fresh from universities, without pre-service professional training for the target learners” (Y. Wu, 2005, p. 14). Although there is clearly a need for professional 242

development, opportunities for in-service training are minimal (Chen & Goh, 2011). According to a nationwide survey, the great majority of university EFL teachers (84%) had never participated in overseas training programs or attended any academic conferences (Xia, 2002). With increasing recognition that teacher education is a critical component in the successful implementation of any educational reforms, the need for systematic pre-service training and in-service professional development, especially for university EFL teachers, has become a major concern in ELT in China (Peng, Zhu, & Zhong, 2008; Y. Wu, 2005). Efforts to enhance pre-service teacher education programs are already underway (e.g., Han, Wang, & Li, 2008; Z. Wu & Lu, 2008). There are also growing investments from the government and social sectors in in-service teacher development programs. One type of program that has reached many Chinese EFL teachers is the program organized by publishing companies, aimed mainly at promoting their new textbooks and teaching materials. Whereas some teachers were happy that they finally got an opportunity for some kind of training to gain new knowledge, many doubted the effectiveness of such a program (Xin, 2006; Zhou, 2005). These initiatives which aimed at increasing teacher capacity were largely top-down efforts that focused on developing knowledge and skills. They did not directly address the beliefs that teachers held concerning the teaching of English as well as their perceptions of their own knowledge and abilities. More needs to be done therefore to understand these teachers’ beliefs because the views that teachers firmly hold on to can enhance or impede the implementation of reforms and change in language education regardless of how well

243

intentioned these initiatives may be (see Kennedy, Doyle, & Goh, 1999).

Teacher Beliefs Beliefs have been described as a “messy construct” with different denotations and interpretations, but the affective and evaluative nature of beliefs is generally recognized to be an important factor that influences the way individuals respond to new phenomena (Pajares, 1992). Teacher beliefs have been an important focus of research in teacher education and classroom learning (Borg, 2006; Kagan, 1992a; Klassen, Foster, Rajani, & Bowman, 2009; Olafson & Schraw, 2006; Pajares, 1992; Woods, 1996). As teachers have to make important decisions about their teaching, their beliefs can have a huge influence on their classroom behaviors and even student outcomes (Borg, 2003; Burns, 1992; Freeman & Johnson, 2005). Pajares (1992) posits that “the investigation of teachers’ beliefs is a necessary and valuable avenue of educational inquiry” (p. 326) whereas Johnson (1994) also affirms the importance of teachers’ beliefs, asserting that “research on teachers’ beliefs will ultimately become one of the most valuable psychological constructs for teaching and teacher education” (p. 439). Phipps and Borg (2009, p. 381) have argued that teachers’ beliefs “can exert a persistent long-term influence” which may even outweigh the effects that teacher education could have on what teachers do in the classroom. Some earlier studies revealed interesting patterns concerning teacher beliefs and teacher characteristics, such as prior teaching and learning experiences, and training experiences.

244

Calderhead (1981), for example, found differences between experienced and novice teachers in terms of their thoughts and perceptions of classroom events and their classroom behaviors. He reported that novice teacher seemed to “have fewer academic perceptions of their pupils (i.e., fine discriminations of particular abilities or aptitudes) than experienced teachers” (p. 55). With regard to classroom instruction, novice teachers were more concerned with their own teaching ability and performance whereas experienced teachers showed more concern for their students. In research on language teacher cognition, there have been few studies that specifically investigated the relationship between beliefs and various teacher characteristics. Some research has examined the impact of teacher educational and training programs on teacher beliefs, but most of these studies were conducted in pre-service contexts and no consistent conclusion has been generated (see Borg, 2011, for a discussion). Among the attempts in researching in-service teachers, the results were mixed. For example, Lamb (1995) found little evidence of positive change in teachers’ beliefs and practices after short teacher education courses. In contrast, Borg (2011) reports some considerable but variable impact of an 8-week teacher education program on the teachers’ beliefs. Clearly, further empirical investigations into the issue are needed for a better understanding of the relationship between teacher education and teachers’ beliefs. Teachers’ prior language learning experiences have also been found to shape their instructional decisions and classroom behaviors (Johnson, 1994; Numrich, 1996; Peacock, 2001; Woods, 1996). These early experiences as language learners were referred to as “the apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975) and formed the basis of teachers’ beliefs about 245

language learning and teaching. In spite of training programs and field experiences in the classrooms, teachers’ ways of making sense of and responding to classroom realities are still very much influenced by their previous learning experiences or memories. As Johnson (1994, p. 440) observed, “when pre-service teachers enter teacher education programs they bring with them an accumulation of prior experiences that manifest themselves in the form of beliefs that tend to be quite stable and rather resistant to change.” Although these studies documented the relationship between teachers’ prior learning experiences and their beliefs and practices, the teachers investigated were almost exclusively pre-service teachers. Relatively little empirical research has been done with in-service teachers (Peacock, 2001). Furthermore, there appears to be little documentation as to how such beliefs may differ across teacher groups, especially in the under-explored English as a foreign language (EFL) context. Research on Chinese EFL teachers is particularly lacking in spite of the many advances in the field of teacher cognition. The need to research Chinese EFL teachers’ beliefs are particularly urgent in view of the many initiatives in promoting better teaching and learning of spoken English as mentioned earlier. The present questionnaire study was therefore conceived with the broad aims of investigating the beliefs that practicing university EFL teachers in China had about teaching spoken English, and whether and how these beliefs might be related to teacher characteristics. Teacher beliefs are defined as firmly held opinions of teachers regarding the teaching of spoken English. Two sets of teacher beliefs are examined: beliefs about the importance of developing students’ communicative competence (CC), and beliefs about the importance of developing linguistic accuracy (LA). 246

Teacher characteristics investigated comprised prior language learning, teaching and training experiences, overseas exposure, self-perceived speaking ability, and familiarity with the methodologies of teaching oral English. To the best of our knowledge, this study which examined the relationship between teacher beliefs and teacher characteristics in the context of teaching speaking in an EFL context is the first of its kind in focus and scale. The study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. What are Chinese EFL university teachers’ beliefs about teaching spoken English? 2. Do the teachers’ beliefs differ according to their professional characteristics, namely, teaching experience, learning experience, overseas exposure, training for teaching speaking, self-perceived speaking ability and familiarity with teaching methodologies?

The Study Participants Participants in this study were university EFL teachers with different background and experience from over 50 universities across about 30 cities in China. They were selected through convenience sampling and snowball sampling. Initially teachers whom we had access to were invited to take part in the survey. Some of these participants also helped to invite their colleagues and identify further appropriate participants into the survey. Altogether, 538 (72.6%) of the 741 survey questionnaires sent out were 247

returned, but six of them had substantial missing data. In the end, 527 (71.1%) complete questionnaires were analyzed. These respondents represented 56 universities from 29 cities. Table 7.1 presents the demographic details of these respondents. Table 7.1 Demographic Details of Survey Respondents (N = 527)

Instrument A self-report questionnaire with two sections was used to collect the data. The original questions to elicit teacher beliefs are presented in Appendix A. The items marked with an asterisk were the ones that were retained after the factor analysis was performed. Section I: Personal Information and Professional Profiles. Ten items were used to elicit data about teachers’ professional profiles. Items 1 to 5 were concerned with teachers’ teaching experiences, academic qualifications, training, and overseas exposure. For items 6 to 10, participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale concerning aspects of formal English 248

learning experience, the influence of their learning experiences on their teaching practices, their self-perceived speaking abilities, and finally their familiarity with methodologies for teaching spoken English skills. Section II: Beliefs about oral English teaching (BOET). 12 items were used to elicit teachers’ beliefs about oral English teaching. Eight items were modified based on Finocchiaro and Brumfit’s (1983) summary of the contrasts between audio-lingual method and communicative language teaching. These items were concerned with issues about drilling, teaching goal, authentic language input, task type, error correction, and the use of learners’ native language and were deemed relevant to the Chinese context. Four more items were developed to explore teachers’ beliefs about effects of instruction, spoken grammar and vocabulary teaching, and educational context on learning to communicate in English. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) was used for the rating.

Validation Analysis

of

the

Questionnaire

and

Data

The full sample (N = 527) was divided randomly into two samples for instrument validation (Field, 2009). A slightly smaller portion (N = 227) of the sample was analyzed using exploratory methods through SPSS 17, and the other portion (N = 300) was submitted to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 16.0. The data were split this way because it was suggested that CFA requires larger sample sizes than exploratory analyses (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). Chi-square tests across all demographic

249

variables indicated that the two samples were not significantly different from one another (p > .05). The results of factor analysis are presented in the Tables 7.2 and 7.3. Only six items were retained after six other items were deleted due to low correlations and complex loadings. The items that cluster on the same components suggest that component 1 represents teachers’ beliefs about developing students’ communicative competence (CC) and component 2 represents beliefs about developing students’ linguistic accuracy (LA). The results of principle component analysis and CFA indicate that BOET is reasonably reliable and valid. Table 7.2 Summary of Principle Component Analysis for the 6-item BOET (N = 227)

250

Table 7.3 Goodness-of-Fit Indexes For the Two-Factor BOET Model (N = 300)

The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and t-tests were used to analyze teachers’ belief differences with respect to various teacher characteristics. The factor-based teachers’ beliefs about developing students’ communicative competence (CC) and linguistic accuracy (LA) were subjected as dependent variables, with the groupings of respondents with different characteristics as independent variables. As there were two dependent variables, the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests would have been preferable to ANOVA. However, a preliminary assumption testing detected violations to homogeneity of variance. Therefore, the more robust ANOVA tests were chosen. In cases where the assumption of equality of variance had been broken, following the suggestion of Field (2009), Welch’s F was reported. In order to control the Type I error rate, for this study, the alpha level was set at .005 for tests of significance.

251

Results Teachers’ Beliefs About Oral English Teaching Teachers’ beliefs about oral English teaching were examined in terms of their beliefs about developing students’ communicative competence (CC) and linguistic accuracy (LA). A 5-point Likert scale was used for each item, with anchors from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). A value of 3 was used as a neutral point between disagreement and agreement. Table 7.4 presents the respondents’ mean scores of the two subscales which show that teachers believed more strongly in the promotion of students’ communicative competence than linguistic accuracy. A further examination indicated that whereas teachers appreciated the importance of developing students’ communicative competence (4.19 indicates firm agreement), they generally disagreed with focusing too much on students’ linguistic accuracy (2.43 indicates moderate disagreement).

Teacher Beliefs and Teacher Characteristics The results of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and t-tests are presented in tables 7B.1 to 7B.6 (see Appendix B). The study found no significant impact of teaching experience (measured by years of English teaching) on the teachers’ beliefs concerning the importance of communicative competence and the place of accuracy (see Table 7B.1). Nevertheless, a statistically significant relationship was found between the teachers’ beliefs and several other professional characteristics. (Statistically significant differences are highlighted in bold in the various 252

tables.) Teachers’ beliefs about developing students’ communicative competence seemed to differ by their personal learning experience (see Table 7B.4): F (4, 522) = 6.39, p < .0001; self-perceived speaking ability (see Table B.5): F (4, 28.91) = 9.30, p < .0001; and familiarity with methodology of teaching oral English (see Table 7B.6): F (4, 522) = 5.80, p < .0001. Concerning their beliefs about developing students’ linguistic accuracy, there were significant differences by variables of teachers’ overseas experiences (see Table 7B.2): F (3, 523) = 13.45, p < .0001; and training experiences (see Table 7B.3): t (525) Table 7.4 Descriptive Statistics for Each Subscale in BOET (N = 527) Subscale Communicative Competence Linguistic Accuracy

No. of itmes

Mean

Standard Deviation

3

4.19

0.70

3

2.43

0.79

= 3.62, p < .0001; self-perceived speaking ability (see Table 7B.5): F (4, 31.48) = 7.54, p < .0001; and familiarity with teaching methodology (see Table 7B.6): F (4, 42.33) = 4.46, p < .005. were found to exert a statistically significant impact on both factors.

Discussion The results showed that teachers in this study, in general, agreed on the importance of developing students’ communicative competence through using authentic materials 253

and tasks, and focusing on communicating meaning as a goal. They were less concerned about focusing on linguistic accuracy which involves correcting students’ grammar and pronunciation errors and expecting them to speak with native speaker accuracy. On the whole, the teachers’ responses seem to reflect the current state of emphasis on language teaching in many parts of the world where more importance is placed on using tasks to develop skills for communicating meaning clearly (Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996). There was also a preference for input that is authentic and resembles the type that learners would actually hear in real-life communication. Other Chinese teachers have also expressed their preference for their students to listen to speech by native English speakers of countries such as the U.S. and U.K., although there is general acceptance that learners would not sound like these speakers (Goh, 2009). These same teachers have also expressed a concern for learners to sound more “natural” (but not necessarily more accurate) by adopting features of spoken grammar derived from native speaker data while at the same time getting their meaning across clearly. The beliefs of the teachers in the present study seem to provide further support for these earlier observations, as well as underscore their understanding of the basic requirement of the Chinese Ministry of Education which sees the goal of English language teaching to be one of enabling learners to gain basic competence to communicate in English. This is an interesting development because traditionally the teaching of English in China had focused on using drills and repetitions to instill accurate speech patterns and accurate grammar modelled after written language. Such an emphasis could be seen in some of the older course books, but the proliferation of new textbooks with a clear emphasis on communication would have influenced the way some teachers view teaching. 254

The results also shed interesting light on the relationship between beliefs about teaching spoken English and specific teacher characteristics. Previous research on teacher cognition has recognized the impact of teachers’ thoughts and beliefs on their teaching practices (Borg, 2006; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Pajares, 1992; Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Woods, 1996). Given that significant differences were found between novice and experienced teachers in their instruction behaviors (e.g., Fogarty, Wang, & Creek, 1983; Tsui, 2009), it is reasonable to expect that the beliefs of the teachers would differ as well. This, however, was not the case with the teachers in our study. In spite of the big differences in the teachers’ years of teaching experience, the difference in their beliefs about communicative competency and linguistic accuracy was non-significant. There is some research evidence that showed stability in teachers’ beliefs and there is little change based on teaching experience (Kagan, 1992b; Nettle, 1998; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Because beliefs can stabilize or are resistant to change, it is possible then that the teachers in our study had held on to their beliefs for many years. It was, however, difficult to determine if this was indeed the case with the participants in our survey. Thus, a more likely explanation for the lack of variation is that many Chinese EFL teachers have been exposed to new ideas of teaching spoken English from different sources and are beginning to embrace these ideas. Thus, even though the teachers who had been teaching much longer might have started out using an audio-lingual method, many could have been exposed to new ideas of communicative language teaching through innovative textbooks adopted and other experiences.

255

Learning experience, examined as satisfaction with the oral English instruction that teachers received as students, was found to be significantly related to their beliefs about communicative competence. Teachers who were very satisfied with their own language learning experiences strongly aligned themselves with the development of communicative competence for learners. On the other hand, those whose personal experiences were less than satisfactory did not. Most of the respondents in this study would have experienced Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methods as English learners in their school days. Considered to be the “best” methodology for ELT in China (Liao, 2004), CLT could have provided positive learning experiences for many of the respondents. There were also similar patterns of impact on beliefs from two other characteristics, namely, teachers’ self-perceived speaking ability and familiarity with teaching speaking methodologies. Teachers who reported higher speaking ability or more familiarity with teaching methodologies believed that communicative competence and linguistic accuracy were just as important, suggesting that they had higher expectations of their students’ language development. This finding complemented previous research which showed positive relationships between teachers’ sense of efficacy and their aspiration, persistence, and commitment to teaching (e.g., Borg, 2001; Coladarci, 1992; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). It is therefore reasonable to expect teachers who perceived themselves to have good speaking abilities and knowledge of teaching speaking to feel more prepared for their task in helping their students reach a higher level of fluency and accuracy.

256

Overseas experience was an important factor in the relationship between beliefs and teacher characteristics. This experience was partly a result of work and studies arising from the country’s emphasis on improving the teaching of English and the quality of teachers. Many teachers had opportunities to attend professional development courses or degree programs in countries which advocated new ways of teaching of English (see, e.g., Zhang, 2004). Such novel learning experiences can have a huge impact on the way teachers think about their own way of teaching back home and may also lead them to use these new ideas as benchmarks or models for practice in China. A wide range of teacher change was reported in a case study of nine Chinese secondary EFL teachers who had attended an ELT training program in Canada (Janusch, 2007). The change included better cultural knowledge, enhanced self-confidence, and extended pedagogical knowledge. The findings in the present study showed that overseas experience had a medium to large effect on teachers’ beliefs about linguistic accuracy. Teachers who have had 3 years or less of overseas experience were less likely to emphasize linguistic accuracy compared with teachers who had never left the country, the latter probably being still influenced by the audio-lingual method. On the other hand, the teachers who had lived in English-speaking countries might have found out through personal experience that they were able to communicate effectively with the locals even when their grammar was incorrect and their pronunciation less than perfect. It is worth noting, however, that the beliefs of teachers who had lived overseas for more than 3 years did not differ significantly from teachers who had never been abroad. Both groups placed a high premium on linguistic accuracy. 257

This may be that the former had good speaking proficiency as a result of long-term immersion in an English-speaking language environment and this in turn led to their higher expectations of linguistic accuracy. In spite of these differences concerning language accuracy, overseas experience did not significantly differentiate teachers when it came to beliefs about the importance of developing communicative competence. It is possible that, after decades of promotion of the notion of communicative competence in ELT in China, its importance has finally been recognized by teachers regardless of whether they had overseas exposure or not.

Conclusion and Implications Although efforts to provide training and professional development for university EFL teachers in China have increased, more may need to be done to enhance teachers’ learning experiences. Given the diversity in background and training among the teachers (as the sample in the study shows), these programs will do well to cater to a wide range of needs and aspirations. In this regard, understanding what teachers believe about language teaching and learning will ensure that what the programs put in place can address the issue of differences in teacher beliefs. This may go a long way in ensuring the success of local reforms and change. As the results of our study on teaching spoken English show, teacher beliefs were significantly influenced by a number of professional characteristics. Three of these are particularly relevant to the planning of teacher development programs for teaching speaking: learning

258

experience with speaking skills, self-perceived speaking abilities and familiarity with methodologies for teaching speaking. It is important that many teachers want to be supported in their efforts at improving their own language abilities. Professional development programs that help teachers do this can lead to the development of strong self-efficacy beliefs, which can in turn boost their motivation to reach further beyond their skills and capabilities to become even better teachers of English (see Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Teacher development programs which tend to focus on imparting skills should also provide opportunities for teachers to examine their personal beliefs. Although teachers need to develop better teaching skills and strategies, they also need to have time for critically reflecting on their own learning and practice, and to be shown how their beliefs can affect teaching and learning. For example, most teachers in this study strongly supported the need to develop students’ communicative competence, but opinion was divided on expecting linguistic accuracy from their students, particularly regarding the immediate correction of grammar and pronunciation so as to pursue the goal of native-like speech. Teachers who did not emphasise linguistic accuracy as a learning goal appear to reflect an awareness of the impact of globalization and the acceptability of varieties of English taught and used around the world, as discussed by Bruthiaux (2010) and Rubdy, Zhang, and Alsagoff (2011). Teacher education programs are good opportunities for raising awareness about these new perspectives in ELT and engaging teachers in examining their beliefs concerning these issues and the impact their beliefs might have on their work. As China continues to aspire to greater effectiveness in English 259

language teaching, there are likely to be even more opportunities for teachers to teach or learn overseas. It is therefore also important to understand how these overseas experiences might influence teachers’ beliefs and in turn their teaching behaviors. Just as important is to recognize and address the differences among teachers who have overseas experience and those who do not. The present study is limited in the scope of beliefs that were examined. Clearly, further studies into other areas of beliefs about English language teaching are needed. These studies are also useful for other English language teaching contexts because of the potential influence teachers’ beliefs have on the successful implementation of local educational reforms. Of particular importance is research in contexts in which English teaching occurs outside of English-speaking countries, as the characteristics of many teachers in these contexts are different from those in the traditional ESOL and ESL countries. English teaching in these new contexts also has to address the changing role of English as an international language and the unique sociocognitive processes in which the language is taught and learned. These new contexts offer both challenges and opportunities for English language teaching. A better understanding of the way teachers approach and respond to these realities mentally will help to inform localized teacher education and professional development programs designed within the broader global landscape of English language teacher education.

260

Appendix A Original Questionnaire Items on Beliefs about Oral English Teaching 1. Students can improve their oral English through drilling (e.g., frequent practice of phrases, fixed expressions and sentence structures, etc.). 2. The goal of oral English teaching is to help students increase their communicative competence.* 3. Authentic oral language input (such as movies, TV and radio programmes produced by native speakers of English) can help students to improve their oral English.* 4. Tasks for developing oral English should reflect real-life demands and situations.* 5. Classroom instruction makes little improvement on students’ oral English proficiency. 6. Teacher should correct students’ grammatical errors immediately.* 7. Teacher should correct students’ pronunciation errors immediately.* 8. The goal of oral English teaching is to help students speak English like the native speakers of English.* 9. Clear instruction of spoken grammar helps students to improve their performance. 10. Clear instruction of oral English vocabulary helps students to improve their performance. 11. Students’ native language will affect the learning of oral English, therefore, native language is not allowed in the classroom.

261

12. Oral English instruction is underdeveloped in Chinese college English teaching.

Appendix B Results of Relationship between Beliefs Teacher Characteristics

the and

Table 7B.1 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Teaching Experience

Table 7B.2 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Overseas Experience

Table 7B.3 T-test Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Training Experience

262

Table 7B.4 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Learning Experience

Table 7B.5 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Self-Perceived Speaking Ability

Table 7B.6 ANOVA Results of Beliefs About CC and LA by Familiarity with Methodology

263

References Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal, 55(1), 21–29. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39(3), 370–380. Bruthiaux, P. (2010). World Englishes and the classroom: An EFL perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 365–369. Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 7(3), 56–66.

264

Calderhead, J. (1981). A psychological approach to research on teachers’ classroom decision-making. British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 51–57. Chen, Z., & Goh, C. (2011). Teaching oral English in higher education: Challenges to EFL teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(3), 333–345. Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323–337. Dai, W. (2002). On a streamline English language teaching system with Chinese characteristics. In W. Hu (Ed.), ELT in China 2001: Papers presented at the 3rd international symposium on ELT in China (pp. 91–106). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE. Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fogarty, J.L., Wang, M.C., & Creek, R. (1983). A descriptive study of experienced and novice teacher’s interactive instructional thoughts and actions. Journal of Educational Research, 77(1), 22–32.

265

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K.E. (2005). Towards linking teacher knowledge and student learning. In D.J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 73–95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goh, C. (2009). Perspectives on spoken grammar. ELT Journal, 63(4), 303–312. Hair, J.F.J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Han, G., Wang, R., & Li, Q. (2008). Zhiqian Waiyu Jiaoshi Jiaoyu Kecheng de Tansuoxing Gaige [Exploration of a new pre-service EFL teacher education syllabus]. In Y. Wu (Ed.), Zhongguo Gaoxiao Yingyu Jiaoshi Jiaoyu yu Fazhan Yanjiu [Chinese university EFL teacher education and development research] (pp. 471–503). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Hu, G. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 24(4), 290–318. Hu, G. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635–660. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

266

Janusch, S. (2007). Unpacking paradigms: Overseas experiences and teacher change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Canada. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2002). English language teaching in China: A bridge to the future. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 53–64. Johnson, K.E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439–452. Kagan, D.M. (1992a). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90. Kagan, D.M. (1992b). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169. Kennedy, C., Doyle, P., & Goh, C. (Eds.). (1999). Exploring change in English language teaching. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Heinemann. Kirk, R.E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 749–756. Klassen, R.M., Foster, R.Y., Rajani, S., & Bowman, C. (2009). Teaching in Yukon: Exploring teachers’ efficacy beliefs, stress, and job satisfaction in a remote setting International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 381–394.

267

Lamb, M. (1995). The consequences of INSET. ELT Journal, 49(1), 72–80. Liao, X. (2004). The need for communicative language teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58(3), 270–273. Liu, R., & Dai, M. (Eds.). (2003). Zhongguo Gaoxiao Waiyu Jiaoxue Gaige Xianzhuang yu Fazhan Celüe Yanjiu [Foreign language teaching reform in higher education in China: a study of current status and developmental strategies]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. Nettle, E.B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(2), 193–204. Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 131–153.

268

Olafson, L., & Schraw, G. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices within and across domains. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1–2), 71–84. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29(2), 177–195. Peng, W., Zhu, X., & Zhong, M. (2008). Waiyu Jiaoshi Jiaoyu yu Fazhan Yanjiu: Xianzhuang, Sikao yu Zhanwang [EFL teacher education and development research: Current status and trends]. Waiyu Jie, 5, 38–45. Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380–390. Richards, J. C., & Rogers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rubdy, R., Zhang, L.J., & Alsagoff, L. (2011). The dynamics of Englishes in Asia: Description, innovation and application in a globalised world. In L.J. Zhang, R. Rubdy, & L. Alsagoff (Eds.), Asian Englishes: Changing perspectives in a globalised world (pp. 1–25). Singapore, London, and New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.

269

Shavelson, R.J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498. Shu, D. (2004). Waiyu Jiaoxue Gaige: Wenti yu Duice [ELT reform: Problems and solutions]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. State Education Development Commission of China. (1992). English teaching syllabus. Beijing: People’s Education Press. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956. Tsui, A.B.M. (2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 421–439. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

270

Wu, Y. (2001). English language teaching in China: Trends and challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 191–194. Wu, Y. (2005). Aspiring after continued teacher development—A study of effective EFL university teachers in China. Zhongguo Waiyu, 2(2), 13–20. Wu, Z., & Lu, X. (2008). Zhiqian Waiyu Jiaoshi Jiaoyu Kecheng Yanjiu [A study of pre-service EFL teacher education syllabus]. In Y. Wu (Ed.), Zhongguo Gaoxiao Yingyu Jiaoshi Jiaoyu yu Fazhan Yanjiu [Chinese university EFL teacher education and development research] (pp. 434–470). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Xia, J. (2002). Daxue Yingyu Jiaoshi de Waiyu Jiaoyu Guannian, Zhishi, Nengli, Keyan Xianzhuang yu Jinxiu Qingkuang Diaocha Jieguo Baogao [An investigation of university EFL teachers’ language teaching belief, knowledge, capabilities, research and professional development]. Waiyu Jie, 5, 35–41. Xin, G. (2006). Lunshu Daxue Yingyu Jiaoshi Zaigang Ziwo Fazhan [On in-service self development of EFL teachers]. Guowai Waiyu Jiaoxue, 3, 18–23. Zhang, L.J. (2004). Reforming a teacher education programme for PRC EFL teachers in Singapore: Sociocultural considerations and curriculum evolution. International Journal of Educational Reform, 13(3), 223–252. Zhou, Y. (2005). Gaoxiao Yingyu Jiaoshi Fazhan Xuqiu Diaocha yu Yanjiu [Needs analysis of EFL teacher 271

development in Chinese universities]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 37(3), 206–210.

272

8 Compliance, Negotiation, and Resistance in Teachers’ Spatial Construction of Professional Identities Selim Ben Said and Chitra Shegar In the last decade, a growing body of research has delved into the complex process of teacher identity development (Alsup, 2006; Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Brown & McNamara, 2005; Clarke, 2008; Danielewicz, 2001; Miller Marsh, 2003; Riopel, 2006; Sachs, 2005). A large part of this literature explores teachers’ identity formation through practical experience (Gaudelli & Ousley, 2009; Trent, 2010) by analyzing teachers’ ‘identity-in-practice’ (Varghese, Morgan, Johnston, & Johnson, 2005). According to this perspective, “teacher agency is seen as action-oriented and focusing on concrete practices and tasks in relation to a group and mentor(s)” (Varghese et al., 2005, p. 39). In our study, we adopt another approach to the examination of teacher development of a professional self by investigating “identity-in-discourse” (Varghese et al., 2005, p. 39). In this orientation, identity formation is mediated and negotiated through language and discursive practices. Research examining the intersections of identity and discourse is

273

burgeoning into several pathways, from the analysis of teacher interactions (Alsup, 2006), use of metaphors (Hunt, 2006; Leavy, McSorley, & Bote, 2007), or engagement in narratives (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999; Sfard & Prusak, 2005). Our approach to discourse encompasses both a textual/ narrative and a semiotic dimension. We conceptualize discourse as an aggregate of linguistic resources and visual artifacts as discussed in Scollon and Scollon (2003). The focus of this chapter, therefore, is on how discourses (consisting of both language and images) in ‘place’ or ‘space’ are used and interpreted to construct particular identity categories and representations. In this respect, we aim to investigate how images of teachers which are displayed within their training center, and which form part of their linguistic landscape (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010; Shohamy, Ben Rafael, & Barni, 2010; Shohamy & Gorter, 2009) constitute powerful prompts which participants interact with and which enable them to take on, resist, or reject pre-defined professional identity categories.

Teacher Identity, Context, and the Landscape Identity is largely formed in relation to context and contingent on the environment in which one is immersed. For teachers, this environment is typically the institution where they teach or at an earlier stage the teacher training center. Within this context, which holistically represents, according to Clandinin and Huber

274

(2005, as cited in Rodgers & Scott, 2008), “the landscapes past and present in which [a teacher] lives and works,” teachers cultivate an image of themselves in relation to available identity categories. As Chong and Low (2009, p. 60) rightly argue, the complex and non-linear path whereby teachers acquire a professional identity is one where “self-image is balanced with a variety of roles teachers feel that they have to play.” This underscores the mimetic and performative (Day & Sachs, 2004; Pennycook, 2003, 2004) traits embedded in teachers’ professional identity development thereby confirming the importance of models, and semiotic representations in shaping their professional selves. Varghese et al. emphasize this tripartite importance of identity, setting, and language: Teacher identity is a profoundly individual and psychological matter because it concerns the self-image and other-image of particular teachers. It is a social matter because the formation, negotiation, and growth of teacher identity is a fundamentally social process taking place in institutional settings such as teacher education programs and schools. It is a process that is inextricably intertwined with language and discourse, insofar as all identities are maintained to a significant degree through discourse. (2005, p. 39) Teacher identity as it is understood in this chapter therefore derives from participation and presence in a particular space and is made possible due to the availability of active and latent representations through which ‘possible selves’ (Hamman, Gosselin, Romano, & Bunuan, 2010) are recognized (i.e., acknowledged by the participant), negotiated, or rejected.

275

Research examining language and space (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006) has highlighted the importance of language display and visual representations in the complex process of identity construction. Recent scholarly interest at the nexus of semiotics and identity development also looks at the role of the spatial, visual, and linguistic elements on signs, billboards, and posts, and their impact on the formation of self (Hanauer, 2010). In this chapter, we focus our examination on how the linguistic landscape (LL; Shohamy et al., 2010; Shohamy & Gorter, 2009) or more generally the semiotic landscape (SL; Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010) can be a site where identities are ‘exhibited,’ and where audiences come to negotiate potential projections of self. This role of physical artifacts and space in shaping subjectivities is not a new one and as Coulmas (2009) states, referring to historical monuments, ancient stone-carvings, steles, as well as early writings: Even when writing was a specialized skill and literacy restricted, the exhibition of visible language marked a fundamental change in the human habitat. It changed the way people saw the world, it changed their world-view, it changed their attitude towards and awareness of language, and in many ways it changed the organization of society. (p. 13) Whereas early LL research has been associated with the investigation of multilingualism (Backhaus, 2007; Gorter, 2006), more recently the scope of this field has widened to include other domains where visual and linguistic dimensions intersect (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010; Shohamy & Gorter, 2009). This study is situated in the same research trajectory and examines not only the language featured on signs but also 276

integrates other modalities in the analysis, thereby transcending the basic ‘linguistic’ or textual levels of interpretation. In addition, rather than look at the LL as an index of multilingual practices and linguistic diversity, this chapter explores how image-based and text-based discourses construct ‘semiotized’ identities (Piller, 2010) and transmit ideologies through physical/visual affordances (Dray, 2010). It is also important to note that whereas most research on space/place has been widely interested in investigating urban environments, this study is one of the very few which offers to transpose the examination of the LL from a large urban platform to a micro-setting, in this case the educational space of a teacher training institution. In fact, with the exception of Hanauer (2010), the examination of the LL of educational settings has rarely been achieved. Hanauer’s study, which investigates the spatial construction of what he terms ‘laboratory identity,’ examines how physical space plays a determining role in shaping microbiology students’ professional identities. Bearing on Benwell and Stokoe (2006) and Pile and Thrift (1995), Hanauer argues that: “The identity of people working in physical spaces such as hospitals, factories, or universities are to a certain extent constructed by being present in these sites” (p. 156). Thus, when signs and physical locations are combined they constitute powerful cues to validate the expression of a certain culture or to absorb particular unfilled identities. We therefore conceptualize identity as context-bound and socially-situated, based on Foucault’s (1972) notion that subjects enact identities which form part of dominant discourses. Our study, which investigates identity formation within the physical space of a training institution, will also examine how this space transmits forms of institutional 277

ideology through the landscape. This ideology which has been explored in a number of LL/SL studies (Gendelman & Aiello, 2010; Shohamy & Waksman, 2010; Sloboda, 2009) represent (emphasis added) “contextual forces which are normative and determined by those in authority who have a vested interest in the compliance of those under their authority” (Rodgers & Scott, 2008, p. 734). In this account of identity construction “the development of the individual becomes a process of acquiring a particular ideological version of the world, liable to serve hegemonic ends and preserve the status-quo” (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006, p. 31). What enables these ideological versions of the world to be sustained is the seemingly non-negotiable nature of semiotic representations, which are on display, static, and sculptural. However, as we will show, teachers negotiate and carve out a space of self-definition around what may look like coercive representations. Our theoretical framework therefore reconciles a Foucauldian paradigm with the non-essentialist conceptualization of identity as a performative, discursive practice where “we perform acts of identity as an ongoing series of social and cultural performances rather than as the expression of a prior identity” (Pennycook, 2004, p. 8).

The Study The purpose of this research was to characterize how images of teachers projected within a teacher training institute and which represent synthetic dispositions of teaching professionals ultimately impact the audience of teachers. In doing so, this chapter adopts a constructionist approach to

278

identity formation where the notion of ‘self’ is socially shaped and defined “by virtue of its membership of, or identification with a particular group or groups” (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006, p. 24). We examine a population of beginning language teachers in their first year of practice and who form part of a common ‘Community of Practice’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991), performing, ascribing, and resisting the identities made available to them in their former teacher training institute. This chapter therefore examines the relationship between semiotic resources and their audiences, and the interaction of signs with their readers. It is believed that, through this interaction, teachers recognize, and eventually either subscribe to or dissociate with versions of identity offered to them. As such, in addition to exploring the nature of images displayed at the teacher training institute, this chapter adds an additional level of interpretation by including interviews collected from teachers to whom these signs were addressed. This approach provides a fuller picture of the interactive relationship between (1) the sign, as a physical entity, which although static, nonetheless engages with (2) an audience of sign readers and yields their participation, endorsement, and/ or rejection.

Methodology Data Triangulation The data referred to in this article consists in (1) images collected from a teacher training institution, and (2) survey-questionnaires as well as semi-structured in-depth interviews elicited from beginning language teachers in their first years of practice. One of the shortcomings, recurring in 279

the variety of LL/SL studies, is the prioritization of the interpretation of signs by the researcher without an element of triangulation from participants who are insiders to the investigated community. In fact, most of the studies in the more recent literature (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010) still bear the premise that it is enough to do-away with the inclusion of an emic perspective in the understanding of signs and their impact. As Spolsky points out (2009, pp. 30–31), one of the current issues in LL/SL research is the lack of inclusion of the agentive element in the analysis and examination of signs whether the agent is the sign conceiver, writer, or reader, in addition to the agency embodied by the institution or managing authority behind this sign. As a measure taken to circumvent the shortcomings associated with this methodological flaw, this study has included, as part of its triangulation, data from respondents (i.e., former trainee teachers) who were involved in interpreting the signs which formed part of the study’s pictorial dataset.

Data Collection of Images The dataset of photographs consisted of 21 images taken at the National Institute of Education, Singapore, and represented a combination of visual and linguistic elements, as shown in Figure 8.1 next.

280

Figure 8.1 Example of images displayed within the teacher training institute. In accordance with Prosser and Schwartz (1998), we conceptualize images in this study both as (a) visual records and (b) visual diaries. In this sense, images are conceived as visual records because they represent a documented institutional reality. They are also visual diaries because they are used as memo notes to provide evidence on the researchers’ position within the project. Although signs are usually either of an informational or commercial nature, the

281

signs collected in this research site may be qualified as ‘hybrid,’ because they combine both informative and promotional (Cenoz & Gorter, 2009) content. In fact, these signs can be said to cater to ‘recruited’1 teachers evolving and being trained in this educational setting and also directed at a potential clientele of future trainee teachers who may wish to join the institute. As can be seen in Figure 8.1 earlier, the notion of ‘excellence’ can be used both as a ‘quality control seal’ for enrolled teachers but also a part of the institute’s public relations campaign directed at candidates who wish to adhere to the image of success and achievement promoted by the training center. The visual data consisted of the entirety of images displayed at the National Institute of Education, with a total dataset of 150 images, of which 21 were retained for the content analysis and teacher interviews. The 21 signs were selected based on a variety of factors. One selection criterion was that several signs featured repetitive notions and concepts (e.g., passion, relevance). The second criterion was that the signs chosen represented the most visible and accessible images within the space of the institute and therefore were the most likely to be seen by the audience of sign readers. Because the institute was located in a circumscribed area and was not geographically scattered or diffuse (see Figure 8.2), the task of collecting data was not an arduous one. All signs were written in English due to the fact that with the exception of a few programs (harbored under the Asian Languages academic unit) all teaching is in English. In addition, English is the main lingua franca used by all ethnic minorities for communication and in educational domains in Singapore.

282

The content of images used as a final dataset for this study mostly represented teachers adopting particular stances, or participating in model classroom situations. Other images consisted of allegories which were related to teaching (Figures 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, and 8.9 following). With respect to images representing teachers, they were symptomatic snapshots of scenarios in which teachers would be expected to assume their professional roles. One should observe, however, that a sizeable number of images featured participants who were ‘acting out’ the role of teachers. More specifically, the display of teachers’ enactment of their professional roles could be qualified as ‘camera-conscious’ or photogenic with participants exhibiting smiling postures for instance, as can be seen in Figure 8.3. This depiction of teachers can thus be said to be idealized or synthetic, and stances adopted by the visual performers featured on these signs can be deemed more as imagined projections of teachers’ identities and stances rather than artifacts of in-vivo real-life situations.

283

Figure 8.2 NIE campus map.

Participants’ Data Elicitation In addition to our analysis of images, survey-questionnaires were given and in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 language teachers who volunteered to participate in the study. All participants were exiting teachers who had completed their training at the institute, and who were in their first year of teaching. It is important to note that given the specificity of the teacher population examined, which was at its early phase of participation in the professional world, the identities which are emerging in this particular phase may be deemed ‘transitory’ or ‘future-oriented’ and therefore constitute a synchronic and atypical part of teachers’ selves. The survey, which took 25 minutes to complete, consisted of two sections. 284

The first section asked participants to give their opinions and impressions about the role(s) of a teacher and the expectations from teachers by parents, stake-holders, and the community at large. The second component of the survey elicited participants’ attitudes towards the set of 21 images taken from the database of collected photographs described earlier. Following this survey, teachers were contacted for a follow-up interview a week later. The semi-structured interview (Carspecken, 1996) lasted approximately an hour and sought to clarify the responses offered by the participants in the survey questionnaire. This data elicitation approach constituted a democratic, non-centralized, and independent theorization

285

Figure 8.3 Synthetic/idealized projections of teachers in action. which was not contingent on the endorsement from top-down/ institutionalized regimes of thought (Foucault, 1980, p. 81). It, therefore, acted as a source of knowledge serving to counterbalance official discourses encountered on the signs themselves and which represented a direct instantiation of stakeholders’ curricula and programs.

Results and Discussion Analysis of Images A qualitative content analysis (Silverman, 2006), which examined both textual and visual components, was performed on the 21 selected images. In light of this analysis, a number of themes were identified, however, three salient ones were retained for examination. These themes, which relate to the institutionally-promoted image of teachers and what these professionals should represent, are summarized in the following sections. Theme 1: Teacher as Competent The most prevalent idea communicated to the audience through these images emphasized notions of professional capability, teacher excellence, and expertise. Several photographic samples also seem to suggest that teachers should strive to constantly maintain their professional skills by seeking knowledge and keeping with the latest developments in their field of practice. This 286

conception partakes in developing the idea that being a good teacher is a lifelong journey, and does not merely end with the professional accreditation. Figure 8.4 represents what seems to be an old computer from the early stages of PC technology which nonetheless has a modern operating system on its screen with multiple icons similar to the ones of Apple products’ interfaces (i.e., iPhone, iPad, etc.). This may imply that while teachers become more ‘seasoned’ (or ‘age,’ as seems to be suggested from the old PC’s external appearance) and gain experience, they can nonetheless still update their ‘operating system’ in light of the latest technological developments.

287

Figure 8.4 Encouraging teachers to espouse the latest developments in the field. This can also apply to other forms of knowledge which are not necessarily technology-related (i.e., pedagogical). The value of relevance is presented in conjunction with computers with the symbolic understanding of the need for teachers to be IT-savvy in the new/modern age being able to tackle the latest developments in the field. This symbolic representation of an

288

old machine with a modern operating system reminds one of the ‘young mind in an old body’ adage. Theme 2: Teacher as Enterprising Another important theme highlighted the role of teachers as initiative-ridden practitioners, responsive to their students’ needs. Teachers are represented as aiming to work towards their goals and find ways to solve problems even in

289

Figure 8.5 An intricate pathway to ‘successful’ teaching. the face of obstacles. A picture which captures this idea represents a goldfish jumping from a small jar into the ocean. The value communicated through this picture is audacity, and ambition to jump into deeper waters. Teachers are encouraged to venture from a smaller ‘experimental’ structure to the larger ocean (or social jungle) with all its risks and hazards. This training institute is therefore the place where teachers 290

develop skills to tackle more challenging tasks much in the same way as the adventuresome goldfish. Figure 8.5 presents a ‘roadmap’ for enterprising teachers. In this poster, progress is symbolized in terms of the ability to solve problems (problems = maze). Teachers are therefore able, through progressive steps, to get out of difficult situations by exhibiting their sense of planning in scaffolding solutions towards objectives. Whereas the arrow is indicative of a driven objective, the maze is non-linear and convoluted. Teacher development is therefore conceptualized and represented as non-linear and chaotic/negotiated rather than as a straight path. This image represents a contrast with Figure 8.3 which provided a relatively glossy impression of teaching as an uncomplicated practice. Theme 3: Teacher as Team Player Finally, as teachers form part of a larger community of practice, it is therefore crucial that they are cued into developing a strong sense of collaboration and fellowship with their peers. This idea is abundantly emphasized using multiple symbolic resources to encourage teachers to work as a team rather than individually. One image presents the idea of synergy by showcasing a circle of adjacent stones placed in the middle of a pond. All the stones have a common transversal white line which unites them. The notion of strength is symbolized by the materiality of stones, which stand for teachers. These stones are placed in a circular configuration which indicates a sense of collaboration and where the common white thread shows that they are similar in essence (i.e., they share intrinsic values), almost like similar

291

species. They form a harmony/synergy which prevents them from drowning in the pond. The idea of collaboration and group cohesion or ‘chemistry’ is symbolized by the circular structure which is presented in a molecular disposition. Another poster (Figure 8.6) represents a collection of small red cubes grouped to form a larger cube. Additional golden cubes complete the larger structure by fitting into small compartments. The idea which emerges from this image is that the larger red-colored cube represents the teachers’ bodies or communities of practice, whereas the new emerging golden cubes are the new teachers who are aiming to integrate the profession. The common goal is represented by the harmony of the structure, which is consolidated and geometrically complete. The color coding may indicate that new teachers are not yet socialized into the norms of the profession and may have to go through a process of adaptation. Another possible reading is that these new teachers bring an innovative edge to the

292

Figure 8.6 An aggregate of common endeavours. community which will remove the dullness of the ‘conformist’ and traditional structure (represented by a uniform color). This presents an image of the teaching body as an aggregate of professionals, which is constantly rejuvenating itself with new blood and expertise.

Regulatory Discourses What seems to emerge from these images is the idea that teachers should be able to tackle a variety of roles but also

293

cultivate a pliable professional identity. In this sense, teachers are envisioned more as problem solvers and not only holders of scholastic knowledge. Whereas these semiotic artifacts are omnipresent within the premises of the teacher training institute, they present a prescribed image of what teachers should emulate. In this sense, they form part of the institute’s ‘semiotic ideology.’ This form of regulatory discourse, which teachers are exposed to in the physical space of the institute, is not always expressed with the same degree or intensity and some images contain a more subtle content (Figures 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6). In contrast, other images display evidence of a more obvious articulation of institutional power. One sign in particular epitomizes a more prescriptive stance which the administration and institution jointly wish to communicate to teachers. This image, shown in Figure 8.7 next, provides a ‘dress’ code of conduct

294

Figure 8.7 Teachers’ promulgated physical code of conduct.

295

which teachers should abide by and which uniformly would entitle them to merit affiliation with the institute. This sign, which was duplicated seven times across different walls of the institute, symbolizes the sartorial and tailor-made aesthetic attributes of teachers as defined by the establishment. It does not describe behavior but simply regulates the dos and don’ts when it comes to teachers’ outlook and appearance.

Teachers’ Attitudes: Compliance, Negotiation, and Resistance Results pertaining to the written survey and interviews conducted with participants are collated in this section. The testimonies presented subsequently are cross-examined in light of the themes that we have identified earlier. Respondents generally agreed that in-principle, successful teachers needed to have some of the fundamental qualities which were sponsored by the institute. More specifically, they considered that several posters consistent with the theme of teachers being enterprising and ‘team-players’ were the most representative of teachers of higher quality. Interestingly, although Singapore is a neo-Confucian society, values associated with knowledge and scholastic skills were not highlighted by teachers. The majority of interviewed teachers selected the images which featured the slogans ‘serving with passion’ and ‘perseverance’ as representing the most important values for the profession. In the banner which features the text ‘serving with passion’ (Figure 8.8), a smiling female teacher is addressing a classroom, and showing an image to her pupils.

296

This passion and pleasure, apparent in the smiling teacher, conveys the idea that teaching is experienced more as a service rather than a profession. Three interviewed participants strongly identified with this poster, Afroza observed: Passion defines everything in anything. Whether you continue fighting in the face of adversity, whether you stop and give up, the level of passion and how much you love your job… regardless of how much it loves you back… will decide. Similarly, Nahri mentioned that this value helped to keep teachers motivated in the face of adverse situations: I believe that teaching is a profession that you need passion to sustain. The passion will give one to overcome challenges that one might face in a teaching career. Other teachers like Grace lamented the fact that this value was not given enough importance in terms of visual representation:

297

Figure 8.8 ‘Serving with passion’ banner. 298

Serving with passion represents me the most as a teacher. However, I am disappointed that it is a not an eye-catching banner as compared to the poster series. I choose Passion as that’s what I am and how I position myself in my teaching career. I step into every class with a positive mind, and love what I do, so that I can teach the students well. When they learn well, I’ll be most touched. Consistent with Grace’s interpretations, we note that in spite of the high value attributed to passion in teaching, posters displayed at the institute did not seem to be particularly ‘vocal’ at perceptibly promoting this value. In fact, only one poster represented this concept. The quality of perseverance which was listed under our theme of ‘teachers as enterprising’ was promoted in Figure 8.9. In this image, three ants are progressing on a branch carrying leaves. The poster was also tagged under the theme of ‘teachers as team players’ due to the fact that ants are symbols of hard work and stand for the archetype of a collaborative society (i.e., team work) working for the edification of a common goal/structure. In this quality, they are a well-chosen metaphor for the community of teachers. Through this association of symbolic representations, the notion of perseverance in the face of adversity is championed as a necessary quality in teachers. This quality was claimed by several participants, who associated their work with the laborious life of this insect working in colony. For example, Adrian cited his experience in the army (another model of collaborative organization) and stated:

299

Figure 8.9 Symbolic perseverance.

incarnation

of

the

notion

of

Perseverance is an important value that I hold very close to myself and try my best to uphold. It has been imbued in me from Army and I have worked hard to hold on to it. In my dealings with children, I seek to inculcate this value in my actions and the way I carry myself. In recognizing perseverance as one of the fundamental prerequisites for successful teachers, participants validated 300

the identity traits promoted by the institution. In their endorsement, they provided added testimonies and authentications in the form of anecdotal evidence—as Adrian earlier—to claim this displayed ‘available’ identity. Legitimation of promoted identities also showcased validations of a more compliant/conformist nature. One interviewee (Jaishree) while commenting on the whole dataset of images stated: Yes, that’s what we are if not, we should strive to be such. Solemnly, she commented in her explanation of this statement: As we work collaboratively with many teachers of different fields, talents and characters, we have to remain highly adaptable in order to move towards accomplishing tasks and achieving goals. This declaration with political undertones, was, however, an isolated voice among the population of surveyed teachers. In fact, a majority of the respondents made the objection that these representations should be considered aspirations rather than accurate representations of the community of teachers as they were not felt to be realistic, balanced, or complete. For example, during the follow-up interview, Rahman explained: The perfect educator in my view should not be perfect. Perhaps these signs do not seek to portray that idea. For some teachers, some of these signs were rather ambiguous, and confusing. Reflecting on some

301

inconsistencies in the use of language on the signs, Yuehua commented: Some pictures do not really sync well in their messages. For example, in this image (Figure 8.10), what does responsiveness have to do with innovation? In my opinion, innovation is more in line with enterprise. Responsiveness would be more in terms of being on the ball in safety of children aspects. This lack of clarity in the complementarity between ‘responsiveness’ and ‘innovation,’ as noted by Yuehua, shows that some of these signs were opaque or too abstract in their message. More importantly, this testimony

302

303

Figure 8.10 Lack of complementarity in linguistic terms. showed that the audience was not acquainted with some of the general traits and visions transmitted by the institution and stakeholders to the audience of trainee teachers. Commenting on the gap between signs and the reality of teachers’ experience, Sarah mentioned that for teachers, some of these messages could have a stressful impact as they promoted an image of teachers who needed to assume several challenging tasks and responsibilities. Judging by her reaction, this degree of responsibility may have already been experienced by this teacher in the first months of her teaching practice. Another participant had a contrasting point of view and argued that the image of teachers as assuming a diverse array of duties actually had an emancipating effect on teachers entrapped in more bureaucratic systems of labour. She explained: These signs erase the disappointments and frustrations of teachers who function in a bureaucratic context. Discrediting some idealizations promoted on the signs, Nuraini and Mariam mentioned that whereas some teachers really joined the profession as a consequence of their strong passion for what they felt was their vocation, other teachers actually made this professional choice for utilitarian reasons, including to support themselves financially. It was also pointed out that these projections were misleading as they did not take into consideration the constraints and challenges which exist in the real environment of schools. This idea, that real life is not captured by some of these depictions, was also

304

noted by Haziq who, commenting on the promoted notion of passion (Figure 8.8), stated: Passion is not observed by smiling at the student when lecturing. Passion also extends to out of classroom contexts which otherwise cannot be photographed. Similarly, Ismail argued that some of these concepts and identity categories could not be sustained in real life contexts: In certain schools, camaraderie might be rare as some teachers might be too busy fighting their own battles. A value which participants discredited for its lack of realism was the notion ‘progressive,’ represented in the poster in Figure 8.5 earlier. Among the reasons for their scepticism, respondents cited that developing a mentality of personal progress was rather impractical and arduous. This is predominantly explained by the lack of time and maneuver given to teachers to chart out a personal pathway. For example Charmaine argued: With all the things that we have to do, it is quite difficult to look at our own progress. However, the sign in Figure 8.5 as it stands is again rather opaque. Does progress stand for the strategies teachers develop to successfully negotiate pedagogical situations or does this poster actually refer to progress in the sense of in-service, supplemental training? It seems that most respondents read it as implying the latter. Several posters are actually equally impervious and are open to a multiplicity of interpretations by the readership. 305

When asked about the personal sphere of physical appearance and the regulatory poster shown in Figure 8.7, the majority of respondents expressed discontent. Maswati mentioned: This image looks restrictive and condescending even if produced initially with good intentions. When asked to comment on the extent to which the identity promoted by this image corresponded to her own identity as a teacher, she added: This image represents me the least, I think there is a fine line between being a student teacher and a teacher. This statement, expressing a feeling of resistance, reveals that not all signs had a comparable impact on participants. In other words, although teachers could overlook certain signs, other posters clearly took them aback and positioned them in softly-taunting non-negotiable subject positions. However, the messages transmitted by the signs on display in the institute ranged from abstract suggestions to prescriptions, and therefore allowed the audience to carve out a space of self-definition in relation to a space and a context. When asked to reflect on the moulding of his identity through the prism of visual representations and textual slogans, Kumar eloquently expressed his dissatisfaction at being relegated to an iconic construction, and revealed the negotiated nature of his emerging identity: I would hate to be portrayed as a projection of ‘institutional images’. While they might be excellent factors by their own valuation, I would like to believe that my identity as an

306

imperfect being seeking to make good could be portrayed not by stock or prefabricated images alone. Although partly conceding that images can be ‘excellent factors’ and showing by his use of ‘alone’ that they still play a role in prompting or modeling teacher identities, this beginner teacher, nonetheless, questions a top-down imposition of teacher identity categories. His comment validates a cooperative and negotiated perspective on identity development, which in addition to being self-constructed, is contextual and contingent on the recognition of peers, students, and other parties.

Implications What emerges from our parallel analysis of the images and interview data is that linguistic and semiotic landscapes can bring to teachers’ attention certain qualities, attributes, and representations which might not have been previously evident to them. These images have a strong prompting power whereby future professionals are encouraged to adopt and perform typified teacher identities. It has been shown that teachers’ perceptions of these semiotic resources are rarely of uncritical adherence, but reveal in most cases a complex process of negotiation, mediation, and at times, resistance. Some of the antagonism expressed by teachers who interpreted these images derives from the fact that identity development—contrary to what is synthesized on the posters—is not a rigid construct but a negotiated and multi-faceted transformation. The attributes suggested by linguistic and semiotic landscapes that get accepted or rejected by teachers seem to be governed by a variety of

307

factors. One of the key influencing factors is individual preference and agency as illustrated by the data earlier. The benefit of this type of research and its importance in investigating teachers’ identity and agency helps to bridge the gap between training centers and schools where teachers work. Whereas this gap has been shown in past research to be mostly due to the inconsistencies between skills acquired and practice (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf, & Wubbels, 2001; Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003), this study shows also that the disparity lies in the representations of what teachers are to expect in their professional practice. In addition, further explorations of ‘semiotized’ identities will help juxtapose idealized identities with teachers’ perceptions of their more nuanced identities. In doing so, research on teacher identity will prioritize the agency of teachers and critically appraise superposed or pre-designed assumptions about teachers’ identities.

Notes 1. All trainee teachers are financially sponsored by the Ministry of Education for the duration of their studies at the institute.

References Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

308

Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175–189. Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Brown, T., & McNamara, O. (2005). New teacher identity and regulative government: The discursive formation of primary mathematics. New York: Springer. Carspecken, P.F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2009). Language economy and linguistic landscape. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 55–69). New York: Routledge. Chong, S., & Low, E.L. (2009). Why I want to teach and how I feel about teaching—formation of teacher identity from pre-service to the beginning teacher phase. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8, 59–72. Clarke, M. (2008). Language teacher Co-constructing discourse and community. Multilingual Matters.

309

identities: Clevedon:

Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice. London, Ontario: The Althouse Press. Coulmas, F. (2009). Linguistic landscaping and the seed of the public sphere. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 13–24). New York: Routledge. Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics and purposes of continuing professional development. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 3–32). England: Open University Press. Dray, S. (2010). Ideological struggles on signage in Jamaica. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 102–122). New York: Continuum. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 49–65. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.

310

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings by Michel Foucault 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon. Gaudelli, W., & Ousley, D. (2009). From clothing to skin: Identity work of student teachers in culminating field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 931–939. Gendelman, I., & Aiello, G. (2010). Faces of places: Facades as global communication in post-Eastern bloc urban renewal. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscape: Language, image, space (pp. 256–273). New York: Continuum. Gorter, D. (Ed.). (2006). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hamman, D., Gosselin, K., Romano, J., & Bunuan, R. (2010). Using possible-selves theory to understand the identity development of new teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(7), 1349–1361. Hanauer, D. (2010). Laboratory identity: A linguistic landscape analysis of personalized space within a microbiology laboratory. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 7(2–3), 152–172. Hunt, C. (2006). Travels with a turtle: Metaphors and the making of a professional identity. Reflective Practice, 7(3), 315–332.

311

Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (Eds.). (2010). Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space. New York: Continuum. .

Korthagen, F., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press. Leavy, A.M., McSorley, F.A., & Bote, L.A. (2007). An examination of what metaphor construction reveals about the evolution of preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1217–1233. Miller Marsh, M. (2003). The social fashioning of teacher identities. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, Rip Slyme, and performativity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 513–533. Pennycook, A. (2004). Performativity and language studies. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1(1), 1–19. Pile, K., & Thrift, N. (Eds.). (1995). Mapping the subject. London: Routledge. Piller, I. (2010). Sex in the city: On making space and identity in travel spaces. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 123–136). New York: Continuum.

312

Prosser, J., & Schwartz, D. (1998). Photographs within the sociological research process. In J. Prosser (Ed.), Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers (pp. 115–130). London: Falmer. Riopel, M.-C. (2006). Apprendre à enseigner: Une identité professionnelle à développer. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Rodgers, C., & Scott, K. (2008). The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D.J. McIntyre, & K.E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions and changing contexts (pp. 732–755). New York: Routledge. Sachs, J. (2005). Teacher education and the development of professional identity: Learning to be a teacher. In P. Denicolo & M. Kompf (Eds.), Connecting policy and practice: Challenges for teaching and learning in schools and universities (pp. 5–21). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.B.K. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22. Shohamy, E., Ben Rafael, E., & Barni, M. (Eds.) (2010). Linguistic landscape in the city. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

313

Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New York: Routledge. Shohamy, E., & Waksman, S. (2010). Building the n♫♫♫♫♫ation, writing the past: History and textuality at the Ha’apala Memorial in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 241–255). New York: Continuum. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Sloboda, M. (2009). State ideology and linguistic landscape: A comparative analysis of (post)Communist Belarus, Czech Republic and Slovakia. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 173–188). New York: Routledge. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L.S., & Johnson, T.S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Albany, NY: The National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. Spolsky, B. (2009). Prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 25–39). New York: Routledge. Trent, J. (2010). “My two masters”: Conflict, contestation, and identity construction within a teaching practicum. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(7), 1–14.

314

Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K.A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4(1), 21–44.

315

9 Understanding Prospective EFL Teachers’ Interest in Teaching Icy Lee

Introduction Teacher recruitment and retention is increasingly seen as a crisis in different parts of the world, such as Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. (Clayton & Schoonmaker, 2007; Taylor, 2006; Thomson, Turner, & Nietfeld, 2012). There is evidence from research on teachers’ work that teaching is becoming more demanding, yielding less satisfaction, and hence less attractive (Hatch, 1999). Enticing suitable candidates into teacher education programs, therefore, is considered an important means to combat the problem of teacher attrition. And if we are able to stimulate and sustain teachers’ interest in teaching, we can be more sanguine about continuous teacher supply and maintaining standards in education. In initial teacher education, there seems a tacit assumption that teacher trainees recruited into teacher education programs are interested in teaching and will take up teaching with interest upon completion of the program with interest. Although this may be true for more mature entrants like those 316

who switch careers, it may be less true for younger education students who have just finished high school, still being not entirely sure about what they want. Investigating how young prospective teachers acquire and perceive their interest in teaching can provide insights into how teacher education programs can be better designed to develop and sustain teacher trainees’ interest in teaching. This chapter investigates the issue of how undergraduate students enrolled in an English language teacher education program at a Hong Kong university perceived their own interest in teaching English before and after a 14-week introductory course on English language teaching, as well as the factors that might influence their interest development. A focus on prospective EFL teachers’ “interest” in teaching is apposite for a number of reasons. First, issues relating to teacher recruitment and retention are of global relevance to the field of English language teaching, particularly in places like Hong Kong where English has a pivotal role to play in education and the workplace. A focus on interest is crucial as good teachers are those who are interested in what they do (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). In his book Teaching Well and Liking It, Bess (1997) states that “teaching it well—and liking it—is very hard to come by” (p. xi). Second, a focus on interest development in teacher education research can provide insights into the affective and cognitive dimensions of teacher knowledge and teacher learning (Tin, 2009). When pre-service teachers start the teacher education program, they tend to have immature and inappropriate understandings of teaching and learning, which may interfere with their learning. Developing their interest during the teacher education program can impact positively on teacher learning and their decision making in the 317

classroom (Tin, 2009), which can also enhance self-efficacy and teacher agency (Renninger & Hidi, 2002). Thus, student-teachers’ interest is a subject worthy of attention in second language teacher education. Third, there is a perceived gap in the second language teacher education literature, which tells us little about the nature of pre-service EFL teachers’ interest in teaching. Although research has demonstrated the reasons why individuals choose teaching as their career, namely, altruistic, intrinsic, and extrinsic (Kyriacou & Coulthard, 2000; Lai, Chan, Ko, & So, 2005; Manuel & Hughes, 2006), little is known about their interest in teaching, how it can be stimulated and sustained, and in particular, how teacher education could be designed to foster student-teachers’ interest development. These factors provide the rationale for the present study, which investigates how local initiatives are undertaken to address an issue that is of global concern to the field of second language teacher education. Using the four-phase interest development model (Hidi & Renninger, 2006) as the theoretical framework and drawing upon data gathered from student interviews and written reflections of five pre-service teachers of English, this study examines the nature of pre-service EFL teachers’ interest in ELT before and after an introductory ELT course in the first year of a teacher education program offered at a Hong Kong university. The research questions that guided the study were: 1. Did pre-service EFL teachers’ interest in teaching undergo any change at the end of a semester’s coursework that introduced them to English language teaching?

318

2. What reasons might explain the change or lack of change in their interest in teaching?

Theoretical Framework: Four Phases of Interest Development “Interest” is a term that is widely used in language education, and it is often used synonymously with “motivation.” In psychology and educational psychology, however, it is believed that the notion of motivation has failed to capture all significant aspects of interest (Schiefele, 1991). “Interest” is a psychological state that applies to people of all ages and to learning that takes place in or outside school. According to Hidi and Renninger (2006), interest has affective and cognitive elements and they are both separate and interactive systems. Affectively, interest refers to positive emotions, whereas cognitively it is characterized by stored knowledge. There are primarily two kinds of interest: individual interest and situational interest (Hidi, 1990; Schraw, Flowerday, & Lehman, 2001; Tin, 2006). Whereas individual interest denotes a more long-term preference for things, topics, or activities, situational interest is less enduring as it is brought about by situational stimuli. Individual interest pertains to feelings of enjoyment and engagement, as well as attribution of personal significance to things, topics, or activities. Situational interest, on the other hand, refers to specific situations that arouse or elicit interest. Although situational interest is more momentary and less enduring than individual interest, when it is sustained it can contribute to the development of individual interest.

319

There are two phases to interest development for both situational and individual interest. For situational interest, it is first triggered and then maintained. For individual interest, it begins with an emerging interest and then well-developed interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). These stages are encapsulated in Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) model of four-phase interest development. triggered situational interest: As the very first phase of interest development, triggered situational interest Phase emanates from short-term changes in affective and 1: cognitive processing, typically triggered by the environmental factors, such as instructional contexts and learning environments. maintained situational interest: Maintained situational Phase interest develops from triggered situational interest, 2: often due to instructional and learning conditions that consist of meaningful and engaging activities. emerging individual interest: Emerging individual interest marks the initial phase of relatively more enduring interest, which is typically characterized by positive feelings, stored knowledge, and stored value. Phase Students also begin to generate curiosity questions, 3: which allow them to make connections between existing knowledge to alternative perspectives and challenge them to seek further knowledge. Emerging individual interest is supported externally, e.g., by models, experts, or peers. well-developed individual interest: Emerging Phase individual interest may or may not lead to 4: well-developed individual interest. Apart from positive feelings, stored knowledge, and stored value, students

320

with well-developed individual interest are able to sustain long-term constructive and creative endeavors. They benefit from external support in the form of models, experts, or peers. Within each phase of the four-phase model of interest development, interaction takes place between the individual and the environment. In other words, students’ interest can develop with support by others (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). As early as 1913, Dewey referred to catching (i.e., triggering interest) and holding (i.e., maintaining interest) factors that influence interest development. Applied to teacher education, it would be useful to find out what factors are likely to catch and hold student-teachers’ interest and thus conducive to their overall interest development.

The Study Context of Research In Hong Kong, as in other places of the world, it is not easy to attract high-caliber people into the ELT profession. Although the starting salary for teachers in Hong Kong is generally high, promotion prospects are not attractive. Too much of teachers’ time is spent on administrative chores; additionally, English teachers are known to have exceedingly heavy workloads as they have to mark students’ writing on a regular basis. More recently, the public image of English teachers has been further undermined by negative coverage by the media on the high percentage of teachers’ failure in the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers of English (LPAT) that the Hong Kong government instituted for English teachers

321

since 2001 (in a bid to upgrade teachers’ English proficiency). Given the strategic importance of English in Hong Kong, upgrading English standards is always seen as an important goal of the government. In the past, English teachers could enter the teaching profession with just an English degree. The move towards professionalism has involved the strengthening of pre-service teacher education programs, and in recent years, the promotion of double degree programs that prepare students for English subject knowledge as well as pedagogy, so that new English teachers will have received adequate training before they start teaching. The site of the present study was a double degree program, a 4-year undergraduate program jointly offered by the Department of Education studies and Department of English of a Hong Kong university. Upon graduation, the students will have attained the government’s requirements of professional English teachers, i.e., (1) English subject knowledge; (2) English language teaching pedagogical skills and knowledge; and (3) English language proficiency equivalent to an overall pass achieved in the LPAT. As students do not necessarily choose university courses they are interested in but rather those that are likely to admit them based on their university entrance exam results, those who perform well in the English subject (but less well in others) may opt for BEd in English, BA in English, or the new BA and BEd double degree program. In the study, therefore, it is likely that some of the entrants in the double degree program might not be interested in teaching to begin with. In the study, a 14-week course called Introduction to ELT (thereafter referred to as the IELT course) was offered in the first semester of the students’ first year of study. I was the 322

course instructor. The course served as a general introduction to the ELT component in the BEd program. It aimed at introducing students to the basic concepts and theories in ELT, enhancing their understanding of ELT methodology and principles of ELT curriculum/syllabus design, and equipping them with skills for lesson planning, preparation, implementation, and evaluation. In particular, the IELT course emphasized ‘reflection’ as a key element of learning, fostering reflective thinking among students and preparing them for reflective practice. In class, students were put into co-operative groups to engage in discussion and interactive tasks and provided with plenty of microteaching opportunities, as well as post-microteaching evaluation. Outside class, students were required to engage in dialogue journal writing with me and interactive journal writing in groups of four, where they responded to and reflected on salient issues raised in class. In the first semester, students also took two other education courses—Introduction to Educational Psychology and Introduction to Sociology of Education, as well as English subject knowledge courses such as English Grammar and Meaning and Introduction to the Study of English Skills. As for teaching practicum, it took place only in the third year of the teacher education program. Overall, the most salient features of the IELT course were its emphasis on interaction, collaborative learning, and critical reflection. At the beginning of the IELT course, I interviewed all 20 students enrolled in the program in English (as part of the university’s English-medium instruction policy) to find out why they chose the program and whether they were interested in teaching English. The interviews were audiotaped. In the first lesson of the IELT course, students were given an image 323

of teaching task, where they imagined they had completed the program and started teaching. They had to draw a picture of the classroom and write a description (in English) of the classroom. Towards the end of the course, they were asked to revisit their original image of teaching and write a reflection paper (in English) to describe the change, if any, in their image of teaching.

Participants Preliminary analysis of the reflection papers showed that five of the students exhibited the most and the least change in their interest in teaching at the end of the IELT course, and they were selected for the present in-depth investigation. Three of them, Stephen, Joshua, and Heidi (pseudonyms were used), were found to exhibit a greater interest in teaching, whereas the other two, Loretta and Jimmy, remained equally ambivalent and skeptical about teaching. All the five participants are Cantonese speakers who had completed their primary and secondary education in Hong Kong. Their ages ranged from 19 to 21 at the time of the study. One of the participants, Loretta, had worked as a teaching assistant in a secondary school for 1 year before she started the double degree program. All other participants had no full-time working experience.

Data Collection and Analysis The study relied on qualitative data from three sources. Apart from pre-course interviews and post-course reflection papers mentioned earlier, post-course interviews were conducted

324

with the five selected participants individually at the end of the IELT course. Being aware that students might say things to please me at the end of the course, particularly because the students might comment on the design of the IELT course, I entrusted the interview task to my research assistant, who was an experienced secondary teacher with more than 10 years of teaching experience. To make sure that students did not perceive the interviews as related to course assessment, the post-course interviews took place only after all the course grades had been released. As the course was over when the interviews were conducted, Cantonese was used, also to put students at ease so that they could express their views freely. Informed consent was obtained from the students for me to use the interview data and their post-reflection papers for research purposes, and it was explained to them clearly that participation in the research study was entirely voluntary (and that even if they did not give consent they would not be penalized). The interview data were transcribed (for post-study interview data they were translated as well) and categorized to identify students’ interest or lack of interest in teaching, as well as reasons that could throw light on their interest development. Categories that uncovered the factors that accounted for their interest/lack of interest were established and coding was performed accordingly. The preliminary interview data analysis was triangulated with the data gathered from the reflection papers, which were carefully read and reread for allusions to interest/lack of interest in teaching. Overall, an inductive approach was adopted in data analysis.

325

Findings and Discussion This section reports the findings gathered from each of the five pre-service teachers, beginning with the three students who became more interested in teaching. Data cited from the pre-interview, post-interview, and reflection papers are referred to as Pre-I, Post-I, and RP, respectively.

Stephen: I Like Teaching Better Now That I Know More About It In the pre-course interview, Stephen was one of those who said he was not sure if he was interested in teaching: I chose this program because I am not interested in business and science. However, I am interested in communicating with people. I’m still exploring.… Well, if I enter the teaching profession, that’s possibly because it’s rewarding to have students treat me as a friend. (Pre-I) At the beginning of the course, an interest in communicating with people was considered an important factor for Stephen’s choice of teaching as a career. He would like to build a strong relationship with his students and be looked upon as a friendly and supportive teacher. At the end of the course, Stephen appeared to have experienced a positive change in his interest in teaching. He wrote in his reflection paper: Not only does this course broaden my knowledge in ELT, but also raise my interest in being an English teacher.… For the time being, being a teacher, to me, is a challenging, life-long career that I should take into deep consideration. (RP) 326

Stephen’s enhanced interest in teaching was partly a result of the interest he had developed in the subject knowledge of ELT. When asked in the post-course interview why he had such a change, Stephen ascribed this to the teacher educator’s influence: I’m impressed by the professor, who has a great deal of enthusiasm about teaching. I can see a big difference between those with a heart and without a heart in teaching. (Post-I) In his reflection paper, he went on to explicate his increased interest in teaching: From this course, I learned to be more confident to express myself, to organize my work better, both in oral and written forms, and to think a lot more about ELT. It is always a good idea to have reflection on what we have learnt regularly so that we can know what we have improved and what drawbacks we still have. (RP) Two factors have emerged as influential in Stephen’s interest development— the modeling of the teacher educator and the opportunities to engage in deep learning through reflection. Through reflection, Stephen gained a better self-understanding and strong grasp of the reality of teaching: The course brought me back from ideal to reality. (RP) As he looked backed, he believed he was rather naive to think that having students treat him as a friend should be one of the primary goals of a teacher. Although teaching practicum had not started, on the IELT course there were

327

plenty of opportunities to discuss the teacher and student roles in the classroom and to engage in peer teaching, making Stephen realize that building rapport was more important than developing friendship with students. The case of Stephen demonstrates that through enriched knowledge about ELT and enhanced confidence of his own English abilities, he developed a stronger interest in ELT. His situational interest was triggered and maintained, and an emerging individual interest was evidenced by his positive feelings about teaching. Overall, his interest development was characterized by enhanced knowledge, increased confidence, supported by the teacher educator’s modeling, and the opportunities to engage in reflection throughout the course, which enabled him to engage in deeper level processing of the ideas learnt.

Heidi: Being Able to Reflect on My Learning Has Helped Me See Teaching from a Different Perspective At the pre-course interview, Heidi was one of those who said, rather firmly, that she was not interested in teaching English. Her reasons were simple and straightforward: I am afraid of the stress and heavy workload. I doubt if I can cope. Also, I’m not sure of my own English abilities. (Pre-I) At the end of the course, Heidi appeared to have developed a much more positive attitude towards teaching. When asked about the reasons, Heidi attributed it to the useful learning from the course and the deeper level of processing that she experienced:

328

I learnt a lot during the course. My thinking is no longer as superficial as before. Now I think more deeply. Before the course I thought teachers simply teach and transmit knowledge. After the course, I have come to realize that teachers do not just transmit knowledge. (Post-I) Through engaging in interactive activities and collaborative learning on the course, Heidi began to challenge her deep-seated belief about teaching as transmission of knowledge, which was based on apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975—because her own teachers played the role of knowledge transmitters). In her reflection paper, she further explained her deeper understanding of teaching: Teacher no longer is the one who gives instruction, but the one who gives support and learns together with the students. (RP) Before the course, Heidi conceived teaching rather narrowly in terms of knowledge transmission. Teaching was not interesting and attractive, especially given its heavy workload. However, through experiential learning on the IELT course, Heidi realized that there is much more to teaching than imparting knowledge. Apparently, the course triggered her situational interest in teaching, which was maintained throughout, and an emerging individual interest was demonstrated, as she commented on the deeper level of processing she achieved through the learning on the course. The interactive nature of the IELT course, as well as its emphasis on collaborative learning and reflection, could be considered catching and holding factors (Dewey, 1913) in Heidi’s interest development.

329

Joshua: Teaching is Not as Boring as I Used to Think! At the beginning of the course, Joshua expressed his uncertainty about the teaching profession: Although I like English and learning languages, I think teaching can be boring. Even if I teach, I may be bored and quit. (Pre-I) Nonetheless, he felt teaching is a decent job: I like helping others and want to be a leader. I have taught the piano and been a private tutor before. The experience is good. (Pre-I) At the end of the course, Joshua developed a stronger interest in teaching: Now being a teacher is a pleasure of mine, and I would like to take up the responsibility to cultivate our next generation. (RP) When asked about this change at the post-course interview, Joshua said, I used to think that teaching is boring but I discover teaching can be enjoyable. (Post-I) Through engaging in the interactive and reflective activities on the IELT course, Joshua discovered that teaching could be fun. He also became convinced that teaching should be student-centered rather than teacher-dominated: 330

Before the course, I was thinking what the relationship between teaching and learning is. What teacher taught was what students learnt. And then I found out my assumption was totally wrong… as teachers always play the role of passing knowledge, it seems that classroom is always teacher-based. But in fact, learning should be based on the student himself but not the teacher. (RP) Joshua’s active engagement on the IELT course, including opportunities for microteaching and reflection, had made him realize the real nature of teaching: Students can’t involve in the lesson if the teacher controls everything.… In order to let the students understand and really learn from the lesson, they should be involved in it. (RP) Like Stephen and Heidi, the course had triggered and maintained Joshua’s situational interest in teaching. In addition, Joshua sought further opportunities to try out the ideas he had learnt from the course through part-time teaching, which testified to his interest development: When I looked for part-time jobs, I got other offers but chose teaching because I wanted to try out what I had learnt. Teaching is not as dull and routine as I think. (Post-I) In Joshua’s case, an emerging individual interest was manifested in his proactive search for part-time teaching to seek further knowledge, thus “learning more than he [one] would otherwise learn” (Schraw & Lehman, 2001, p. 23).

331

Loretta: Teaching is a Decent Job But I Wouldn’t Like to Do it, Except in a Small-Class Setting At the pre-course interview, Loretta said rather categorically that she would not like to be a teacher but it was fine to be a private tutor. When asked why she was not interested in teaching, she said she had worked as a teaching assistant before and found teaching uninteresting: I am not interested in teaching but nonetheless the BEd component of the double degree program can broaden my horizon. (Pre-I) She said she was mainly discouraged by the problems teachers face, namely the practical constraints like classroom management and large class size: It is difficult to maintain classroom discipline in a class of 40. (Pre-I) At the end of the course, Loretta remained more or less the same in her attitude to teaching: I don’t really have any incentive to become a teacher in my future time.… I found that there are many difficulties in teaching and no matter how many efforts teachers have put in, the result is really not good. (RP) The main obstacles concern the problems teachers face, including heavy administrative duties, large class sizes, and classroom discipline. In the post-study interview, she said:

332

I dislike administrative work. Teaching is not just teaching but teachers have to take care of other things as well. (Post-I) Another reason which she factored in was class size: In a smaller class, the teacher can use games and peer pressure to persuade students to join. In a class of 40, the teacher cannot look after all the students. (Post-I) Concluding, Loretta said: I would like to say that the knowledge that I learn in this course can only be useful in my private tutorial lessons. (RP) Although Loretta was impressed by the theories introduced on the course (“What the lecturer said really impressed me”—Post-I), she was skeptical about their feasibility. She felt that she could not connect them in real life: I had been an English Teaching Assistant last year and I found that there are many difficulties in teaching. (RP) Loretta’s reservation reminds us of the gap between theory and practice, which remained very much a gulf for Loretta at the end of a 14-week IELT course. This is not surprising, given that it was just a 14-week introductory course and the teaching practicum had not commenced. After working as a teaching assistant in a school (before she took the course), she strongly believed that teaching is such a demanding and challenging job that the knowledge acquired could not be applied in mainstream classrooms, but perhaps only in tutorial schools with smaller class sizes.

333

Loretta appeared to have ingrained attitudes about teaching and was reluctant to work in a context which she felt was full of insurmountable problems. Apparently, her perception was shaped by her experience as a teaching assistant and the pessimism she developed accordingly. The findings demonstrate that personal experience can have a powerful influence on pre-service teachers’ perspectives on teaching (Cabaroglu & Roberts, 2000). In her case, though the course was considered useful, it had failed to develop her interest in teaching.

Jimmy: I Like Teaching Where Teachers Just Talk and Students Work on Their Own At the beginning of the course, Jimmy was one of the few pre-service teachers who candidly confessed that teaching was attractive because of its good pay and the long holiday. Unlike most of his peers, Jimmy did not appreciate the alternative approaches adopted by the instructor: In the first few weeks, I found that that materials taught in the lecturers were a bit boring and unpractical. Why do we need to learn lots of teaching methods, like audiolingualism and direct method? Why do we need to learn how task-based learning is effective? Do we really practice them in the lessons? I did have lots of questions for that. (RP) In his teaching philosophy, teaching is a simple task: Being a teacher, what we need to do is to explain the materials once. The rest of the jobs are left to students. (RP)

334

Interestingly, Jimmy referred to his own uncle, a university teacher, as his model, who taught in the manner described previously. He thought that the ideas introduced on the IELT course did not suit him: To be honest, I enjoy my uncle’s style of teaching rather than the one I learn in the lectures. (RP) Jimmy’s image of a teacher was one who purely transmitted knowledge, and one who did not have to do a lot of work: I don’t care if students are learning or not. I enjoy the university style of teaching. I talk and they listen. I don’t want to be a secondary teacher who guides students step by step. I will do a master’s course and won’t teach in any secondary school. (Post-I) His attitude towards teaching remained unchanged towards the end of the course. The ideas he had learnt from the course had minimal impact on him, though he said he would think more from the students’ perspective: I will try to use one or more interesting activities to motivate those unmotivated students… but if students are unwilling to learn, a teacher can’t change them. (Post-I) To Jimmy, the attractions of teaching were mainly linked to its pay and holidays. Before and after the IELT course, he was only interested in the kind of teaching that required minimal input from the teacher. The course had failed to trigger his interest in secondary school teaching (which was one of the objectives of the double degree program), and the knowledge presented on the course, and the challenges raised 335

through discussion and reflection topics, had failed to engage him and alter his attitude towards teaching. In Jimmy’s case, his pragmatic values and personality could be seen as impediments to his interest development.

Implications Before discussing the implications of the study, its limitations have to be noted. First, an in-depth investigation of five students can only present a snapshot of the nature of pre-service teachers’ interest in teaching, and no generalization can be claimed based on such a small sample. Second, the short duration of the course has to be taken into account as we draw conclusions about the impact of initial teacher education on pre-service teachers’ interest development. Third, apart from the IELT course, there could have been other factors that influenced the pre-service teachers’ interest in teaching, but these were not probed in the study. Finally, the positive attitudes some of the pre-service teachers exhibited at the end of the IELT course related mainly to the content and processes they experienced on the course, including the teacher educator’s personality and style, rather than the realities of teaching (as they had not started their practicum). The real issue is how to sustain their interest in teaching, which could be short-lived, and how to further develop their interest when they start their practicum, so that when they go into teaching they remain equally if not more interested. These issues, however, are beyond the scope of the study. Although the chapter describes a study about pre-service teacher education in the Hong Kong context, the issues

336

examined are of relevance to teacher educators elsewhere. A few implications can be drawn, especially in relation to the design of teacher education programs. First, pre-service teachers can benefit from opportunities for ongoing reflection that engages them in deep processing of teaching and learning issues and opens discussion where their pre-existing assumptions about teaching are challenged (Jay & Johnson, 2002). What teacher education programs can do is to encourage students to self-regulate their learning, actively ask and seek answers to their questions, continuously challenge their assumptions about teaching, and thus promote teacher learning. The findings of the study demonstrate that reflective activities in teacher education programs are likely to have a stronger impact on interest development than theories and principles (Busch, 2010). Second, pre-service teachers need confidence building so as to feel that they are competent enough to take up the challenge of teaching English as a foreign language. They cannot possibly develop an enduring interest in teaching if they feel inhibited or threatened (Sloboda, 1990). A focus on confidence building during teacher preparation is therefore essential. Third, pre-service teachers need good role models to move them along in their interest development (Renninger, 2000; Renninger & Hidi, 2002). In the study, the teacher educator was looked upon as a role model, which helped some pre-service teachers develop more positive attitudes towards teaching, suggesting that interest development can be externally supported (Hidi, 1990). Teacher education programs can consider bringing in other models or experts, such as excellent frontline teachers to share teaching experience with students as a regular activity. More importantly, teacher educators could consider including “exploring interest in teaching” as an explicit focus of the teacher education 337

program, so that they help teacher trainees explore their interest in teaching and come to a better understanding of their motives in teaching. This is particularly useful during the teaching practicum period, as pre-service teachers are likely to encounter problems and setbacks. The ultimate goal is for teacher educators to help student-teachers sustain a well-developed individual interest, which is useful especially when they are faced with difficulties, setbacks, and frustrations (Prenzel, 1992; Renninger, 2000). Thus, an explicit focus on exploring interest with a view to instilling positive attitudes throughout the teacher education program is crucial. For students without a strong interest in teaching, such as Loretta and Jimmy in the study, through an explicit focus on “exploring interest in teaching,” teacher educators may find ways to foster more positive attitudes. For instance, they can provide opportunities for students to experience positive affect through either observing or experiencing success in teaching, like managing classroom discipline effectively and implementing interactive activities successfully in large class sizes. Changing negative attitudes towards teaching is not easy, especially when the personality factor and prior experience are involved, but if teacher educators put a greater focus on the affective dimension of teaching early in the teacher education program, there is a better chance for students to develop a positive interest in teaching.

Conclusion Beginning education students have 3 to 4 years on the teacher education program to explore and develop their interest in

338

teaching. Fourteen weeks is certainly a short time and unlikely to enable students to acquire a well-developed interest in teaching. Nonetheless, the study has demonstrated that a semester’s coursework could be effectively used to develop teacher trainees’ interest in teaching. The findings suggest that student-teachers’ interest development is influenced by a number of factors, including increased knowledge of ELT, deeper understanding of the nature of teaching, opportunities for active learning and reflection, a sense of self-efficacy as pre-service teachers gain confidence in their own abilities, and modeling of the teacher educator. It is important to find ways to promote pre-service teachers’ interest in teaching early in the program and sustain it throughout their learning-to-teach process so that, hopefully, when they become teachers, they can survive the difficulties in the classroom and remain committed. Even for students with negative feelings about teaching, an explicit focus on interest can enable teacher educators to support students’ interest development by helping them experience positive affect and diminish their negative feelings. Although motivation and commitment are not the only reasons why teachers stay in the field (there are other important factors like support in the workplace and opportunities for professional learning; Cochran-Smith, 2004), good teachers are those who are passionate and committed (Bess, 1997; Cochran-Smith, 2004). Positive attitudes cannot be directly taught, but they can be promoted and nurtured. To conclude, there is much more to teacher education than knowledge development, as quality teachers are not only skilled but also interested and committed. It is therefore important that teacher educators trigger and maintain 339

pre-service teachers’ situational interest with a view to helping them acquire a well-developed individual interest in teaching. Such individual interest can help them survive the difficulties in the classroom and remain committed to teaching. Indeed, there is a lot more we can learn from studies that focus on pre-service teachers’ trajectory of interest development. Future research can investigate how teacher education programs can provide a supportive context for pre-service teachers to develop and sustain an enduring interest in teaching.

References Bess, J.L. (1997). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language learning: The second language acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318–337. Cabaroglu, N., & Roberts, J. (2000). Development in student teachers’ pre-existing beliefs during a 1-year PGCE programme. System, 28, 387–402. Clayton, C.D.G., & Schoonmaker, F. (2007). What holds academically able teachers in the profession? A study of three teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(3), 247–267.

340

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Stayers, leavers, lovers, and dreamers: Insights about teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 387–392. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and effective teaching: A flow analysis. In J.L. Bess (Ed.), Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively (pp. 72–89). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press. Hatch, J.A. (1999). What preservice teachers can learn from studies of teachers’ work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 229–242. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. Jay, J.K., & Johnson, K.L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73–85. Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and

341

development (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kyriacou, C., & Coulthard, M. (2000). Undergraduates’ views of teaching as a career choice. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 26(2), 117–126. Lai, K., Chan, K., Ko, K., & So, K. (2005). Teaching as a career: A perspective from Hong Kong senior secondary students. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 31, 153–168. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Manuel, J., & Hughes, J. (2006). ‘It has always been my dream’: Exploring pre-service teachers’ motivations for choosing to teach. Teacher Development, 10(1), 5–24. Prenzel, M. (1992). The selective persistence of interest. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 71–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Renninger, K.A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 375–407). New York: Academic. Renninger, K.A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In

342

A. Wigfield & J.S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173–195). New York: Academic. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 299–323. Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211–224. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for further research. Educational Pyschology Review, 13(1), 23–52. Sloboda, J.A. (1990). Musical excellence—how does it develop? In M. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 165–178). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society. Taylor, A. (2006). Perceptions of prospective entrants to teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 451–464. Thomson, M.M., Turner, J.E., & Nietfeld, J.L. (2012). A typological approach to investigate the teaching career decision: Motivations and beliefs about teaching of prospective teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 324–335. Tin, T.B. (2006). Investigating the nature of ‘interest’ reported by a group of postgraduate students in an MA in

343

English language teacher education programme. System, 34, 222–238. Tin, T.B. (2009). Emergence and maintenance of student teachers’ ‘interest’ within the context of two-hour lecturers: An actual genetic perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 109–133.

344

Part IV Reflective Practice, Feedback, and Facilitation

345

10 Teacher Beliefs Classroom Practices

and

A Case Study of an ESL Teacher in Canada Thomas S.C. Farrell and Barbara Tomenson-Filion

Introduction In TESOL, researchers (e.g., Andrews, 2003; Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2004; Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver, & Thwaite, 2001; Farrell & Kun, 2007; Farrell & Lim, 2005; Phipps & Borg, 2009) have begun to show more of an interest in what drives teachers to choose certain activities for the language classroom. This emerging research focuses on teachers’ beliefs, what they are, where they come from, and how important they are in influencing what is being taught in the classroom. However, not many language teachers are aware of their beliefs and to what extent their beliefs are reflected in their classroom practices (Farrell, 2007). This chapter outlines a case study that investigated the complex relationship of one experienced Canadian ESL teacher’s stated beliefs about teaching and learning and his actual classroom practices.

346

Teacher Beliefs Practices

and

Classroom

Michella Borg (2001) defines a belief as, “a proposition which may be consciously or unconsciously held, is evaluative in that it is accepted as true by the individual, and is therefore imbued with emotive commitment; further, it serves as a guide to thought and behavior” (p. 186). All teachers have beliefs about teaching and learning. Teacher beliefs are personal values and ideologies (Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001), are usually held tacitly, and are said to have a great influence on teachers’ instructional practices (Farrell, 2007). Simon Borg (2003) maintains that teacher beliefs are “what teachers know, believe, and think” (p. 81). Teachers’ beliefs seem to originate from their prior experiences as students as well as from past teaching experiences in the classroom and are accumulated during a teacher’s career (Breen et al., 2001; Mok, 1994). Regarding the accumulation of teachers’ beliefs about teaching during a teacher’s career, Breen et al. (2001) have suggested that experienced teachers seem to not only create new beliefs along the way, but also expand on their personal collection of beliefs with which they are comfortable and to which they have become accustomed. These beliefs are personal building blocks of their role as a teacher and have a major influence on their instructional practices. Andrews (2003) maintains that even though teachers have many different beliefs, there is a definite relationship that emerges between their teaching beliefs and their classroom practices. In TESOL, research has indicated that language teachers use their beliefs as a foundation from which to create particular 347

classroom instructional activities (S. Borg, 2003; Breen et al., 2001; Mok, 1994). According to Borg (2003), classroom practices are chosen by drawing from a collection of complex belief systems. Breen et al. (2001) suggest that as teachers become more experienced, they adapt these classroom practices around these complex set of beliefs. As Breen et al. (2001) state, it is these beliefs that “influence how the teacher orchestrates the interaction between learner, teacher, and subject matter in a particular classroom context with particular resources” (p. 473). Indeed, as Breen et al. (2001) continue, it is not just the beliefs that influence classroom practices, but these same practices in turn influence (and possibly change) their beliefs. Mok (1994) suggested that “the way teachers defined their role in relation to their students explained the decisions they made about teaching and their views on a variety of issues related to teaching and learning” (p. 108). As such, even though teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were formed before they began to teach (such as in teacher preparation programs) in the classroom, the outcome of the classroom practice will result in a type of reshaping of their beliefs. It is important then to reflect on teacher beliefs at all stages of a teacher’s career because they are formed, shaped, and reshaped through a person’s personal and professional experiences and interactions on a daily basis. By reflecting on their beliefs and teaching practices, teachers become more aware of the source of their beliefs as well as how their beliefs and their classroom teaching practices influence each other (Farrell, 2007).

348

Case Study This case study investigated the relationship of one experienced ESL teacher’s stated beliefs and compared these to his classroom practices. A qualitative research paradigm using descriptive research was selected for this study. According to Matsuda and Silva (2005), descriptive designs focus on variables without changing the natural environment. These types of designs include case studies which study the behavior of an individual or a small group of individuals in their natural environment, the classroom. We now outline the context and the methodology of the case study of an experienced Canadian ESL teacher’s stated beliefs and how these were reflected (or not) in his actual classroom practices.

Context The School The school where the participant was teaching is a private (fee paying) residential independent day and boarding school located in eastern Ontario. There are 579 elementary and secondary students. Three hundred students live at the school, 180 of whom are international students representing 31 countries around the world. The Teacher Mark Smith, a pseudonym, volunteered for this case study and he is an experienced teacher with a bachelor’s degree of fine arts, and a teaching qualification from a teacher’s college

349

in Ontario. He also has specialist certificates in drama and special education and is able to teach in both primary–junior and intermediate–senior classrooms. He has been teaching English, drama, and ESL at his current school for 10 years. At the time of the study, it was his first year teaching an ESL literacy class, and so he was curious about how he was “doing” as a teacher—his stated reason for volunteering for classroom observations. Mark was aware (and agreed) that there would be three interviews and 10 hours of classroom observations. The Class The ESL literacy class that Mark was teaching consisted of 11 students, 9 males and 2 females. Two students were from Russia and 9 were from Asia (6 from China, 1 from Japan, and 2 from Korea). This Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (OSSLC) was introduced in Ontario secondary schools in the 2003–2004 school year, and it is a full-credit Grade 12 course offered as part of the English program. The class is offered to students who have had two opportunities to write the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) and have been unsuccessful at passing the test. It is built around three strands: building reading skills, building writing skills, and understanding and assessing growth in literacy. Informed consent was obtained from the teacher and the educational institution at which he works stating the type of research, the purpose of the research, a statement of the possible risks and benefits, and a statement that the participant’s participation is completely voluntary and that if he felt uncomfortable, he could withdraw at any time without penalty.

350

Methodology For the purpose of this study, teacher beliefs refer to a teacher’s unconscious or conscious knowledge, feelings, and thoughts about learning and teaching English, as well as beliefs about the English program and curriculum. The goal was to discover the various pedagogical beliefs of one teacher, observe the teacher’s classroom practices, and then examine the extent of convergence or divergence between the teacher’s beliefs and classroom practices. The main research questions were: 1. What are the teacher’s beliefs and what are their origins? 2. What are the teacher’s observed classroom practices? 3. What is the relationship between the teacher’s stated beliefs and his actual classroom practices?

Data Collection Data were collected from multiple sources (Flood, Lapp, Squire, & Jensen, 2005), such as audiotaped interviews and videotaped classroom observations. The audiotaped interviews were used to collect the necessary data that were representative of the teacher’s beliefs. The classroom observations were videotaped in order to collect the necessary data that were representative of his classroom instructional practices. Ten hours of classroom teaching was observed in order to obtain the necessary information regarding Mark’s classroom practices. In order to reduce the risk of the students not being

351

comfortable, only the last four classes were recorded; however, extensive notes were also taken by the observer of all the other classes that were observed. The researcher was introduced to the class, sat in the back corner, and did not participate in the class. A one-on-one, open-ended interview, with questions that were structured in order to extract particular information that specifically focused on the teacher’s beliefs, was used (McKay, 2006). Three separate interviews were also conducted with Mark. When he felt comfortable in this interview process, the second and third interviews were recorded and later transcribed. The first set of interview questions included biographical questions regarding his life as a learner and then as a teacher. The second set of interview questions after observing four classes, focused on the researcher’s observations from the in-class observations. The third interview, after observing seven classes, focused specifically on the teacher’s stated beliefs about learning, teaching, the language itself, and the program and the curriculum.

Data Analysis After the data were collected from the interviews and classroom observations and transcribed, they were analyzed, coded, and sorted into categories based on methods described in Richards and Lockhart (1994). For example, the teachers’ beliefs were sorted into four categories: (a) beliefs about teaching, (b) beliefs about learning, (c) beliefs about English, and (d) beliefs about the program and the curriculum. The teacher’s beliefs were

352

then matched with the classroom practices and sorted into four categories that represented the sources of the beliefs: (a) beliefs based on prior learning experience, (b) beliefs based on teaching experience, (c) beliefs resulting from a particular approach or teaching method, and (d) beliefs based on the teacher’s personality factors. The issues of validity and credibility are a concern especially in qualitative research because the data are the unobservable: thoughts, feelings, and observations which cannot be seen or quantified. One of the ways that researchers can guarantee that the facts they recount are valid is through triangulation. Triangulation is a method in which researchers use multiple assessments in order to explain meanings (Flood et al., 2005; McKay, 2006). Researchers look at data collected in different ways in order to see the relationship. Having more than one source of data corroborates the data from the other source. In this case study, data were triangulated with the researcher’s field notes, recordings of the interviews, and videotapes of classroom observations.

Results We now outline and explain the results of the teacher’s stated beliefs and his observed classroom practices.

Mark’s Stated Teacher Beliefs The beliefs that emerged from the interview data were coded into four categories as shown in Table 10.1: (a) beliefs about teaching, (b) beliefs about English, (c) beliefs about learning,

353

and (d) beliefs about the program and the curriculum. These categories were chosen because they are related to pedagogy. Table 10.1 Mark’s Stated Teacher Beliefs

354

Beliefs About Teaching Mark said that he believes that effective teachers (regardless of what they teach) are patient and knowledgeable, and it is important that they “enjoy” the age group of the students they are teaching. For example, in the third interview, when asked about the qualities of a good teacher, Mark responded that they have, Patience and knowledge of the subject, and you truly have to like the age group you are teaching. Even if they love the subject, unless they really enjoy the company of that particular group of kids, they’re not going to be very effective. He also commented on the roles he plays: “I like the theory of ‘guide on the side’ stuff but it just doesn’t work if they don’t know the language yet. So I think a mixture of instructor and guide is necessary for an ESL teacher.” In the same interview, he also said that he believes that the use of authentic texts is very important for the students as these texts are a link to the real world. In this interview he stated, I try to connect with the paper and their hometown. Something that has real meaning for them in terms of a purpose to speak or to write the language that they’ll use outside of the classroom. Stuff where they’ll take over from you and do it independently. Where they can apply what you’ve taught them on their own in new situations.

355

Mark claimed that by using authentic texts and choosing topics that he feels the students are interested in, he is able to keep the learning fun and interesting. Beliefs About Learning Mark said that he believes that learning is a daily experience. He mentioned many times during the second and third interviews that he believes that exposure to the culture and social life of the language being learned is very important. In the third interview he expressed that, Socializing with your own age group is a requirement to survive, like even in a practical sense, living in a city where you have to get by with people who speak the language, you have to force yourself to use the language. He also said that he feels that “social and outgoing students achieve in my classes because they speak English both inside and outside of the classroom.” Mark stated in both the second and the third interviews that the students benefit from the critical thinking activities that he promotes in the classroom by “actively reflecting on issues and asking questions as opposed to just spitting it back.” In addition to his stated beliefs about learning in the first interview, Mark then relayed, more specifically, his beliefs about learning English. Beliefs About English In the third interview, he claimed that he believes that it is important to “learn the language of where you’ll be living.” He also added that, “the English language is associated with

356

business, finance, the economy, and social life” and “if you can not speak the language of the country that you live in, you will not be able to survive.” However, he also stated that he believes that “English does not have to be spoken without an accent and it does not have to sound native-like.” According to Mark, communication is a very important skill when acquiring a second language. Beliefs About the Program and Curriculum The Ministry of Education supplies the curriculum guidelines for the Ontario literacy course. These guidelines contain instructional objectives that Mark claims are helpful as a foundation to help organize and guide the teacher in order to help the students progress to attain their goals by the end of the year. In the interview, Mark stated that he starts with these objectives, or as he says “with the ministry stuff, and then I try to mix it up with a combination of things that I enjoy teaching that they will be able to swallow.” Then he said he becomes “specific with what the group seems to enjoy and where they’re at.” Regarding the use of textbook he said that the textbook becomes dated quickly so it is best to “use as a backup and you have to use it sometimes but it’s better to use more of a variety of materials that are connected with the world that is changing so quickly.” Mark would like to have better diagnostic tests for the students at the start of the year so that he “could get a picture of where they are at,” (Interview 3, June 13, 2011) but not a test in which the marks would be recorded:

357

I’d like there to be a few more resources for some standardized diagnostic stuff. Like, I’d like to be able to start off the year with more than a piece of paper saying they failed the test. I’d like resources to look at their individual scores in reading and math and look at their basic level of their language ability in a diagnostic way and more of an individual learning assessment. However, Mark also said that he believes that there is a place for assessment, but not until the students feel at ease in their surroundings; he said that continuous assessment would be best: “You’ve got to give them lots of practice time. Give them lots of chances to draft things, correct them, and give them marks for doing that. Then there’s a point where you have to introduce them to the testing. And then you do the testing on a regular basis.”

Mark’s Classroom Practices Ten hours of classroom practice were observed. Table 10.2 outlines a summary of these classroom observations. Each observed classroom practice was divided into four different instructional strategies that the teacher used: (a) a play, The Drawer Boy; (b) The New York Times article, The Chinese Economy and the Future; (c) quiet work time; (d) a YouTube clip; (e) a news article on Roof Top Gardens; (f) newspaper article writing; and (g) an opinion paper. Each of these instructional strategies included different activities that the teacher used in the classroom. These activities are listed in column three of Table 10.2. Table 10.2 Mark’s Observed Classroom Practices

358

359

The first column represents the instructional strategies that the class was centered around, the second column numbers each

360

of the classes, the third column indicates which practice activities were chosen by the teacher, and the fourth column shows the classroom configuration: whether the activity was carried out individually, in pairs, in groups, or as a whole class. Mark chose a play, The Drawer Boy by Michael Healey, as the first instructional strategy. He then selected many activities such as free writing, watching a film clip, reading out loud as a class and in groups, comprehension questions, wiki work, and mind mapping in order to assist the students with the writing of the final essay. Many of these activities included a great deal of interaction, collaboration, and computer work. In classes 3 and 4, Mark selected authentic material such as news articles from an online New York Times internet site. He then chose an independent activity such as silent reading and then paired it with a writing blog for students to compile their ideas and suggestions. Afterwards, the students were given an opportunity to comment on and edit their peers’ work. During the observation of classes five and six, Mark gave the students extra time to work on homework from other classes. This was a quiet time for the students to catch up on independent work or ask their peers or the teacher for help. It should be noted that this was not a scheduled activity in Mark’s lesson plan for the day. In class 8, Mark showed a YouTube clip about a Russian reporter on a Russian news channel who had been given a funny story about bears in Canada. The clip and the story had nothing to do with the lesson plan for that day; however, Mark was able to lighten the mood in the classroom as the students laughed and commented in English.

361

After the YouTube clip, the students were given an article on Roof Top Gardens. Each student had the opportunity to read out loud, and then, as a class, they did a pre-writing activity which included brainstorming different aspects of the story such as title, topic sentences, key words, and conclusion. Then, the students, independently, summarized the article. When they were finished, Mark displayed some of the students’ writing on the whiteboard and the students had a chance to edit the summary. The observed activities in class 9 included similar writing activities. The students were given a headline and a picture and were asked to produce a news article that would accompany it. First, as a class, they brainstormed different ideas. These “basics,” as Mark referred to them, consisted of the “who, what, where, why, when, and how” of the article including the town, the city, the date, and the weather. Mark called this a “creative umbrella.” The students then summarized the article and, when they were finished, they exchanged their papers with their peers to edit. Next, students volunteered to display their article on the whiteboard for further correction. Mark then displayed a correct summary of the article so that the students could visualize what their summary should resemble. After these two classes of writing activities, classroom observation 10 consisted of an independent activity, which the students were told by Mark, “would look similar to the exam that they were about to write.” There was no class collaboration during this class activity, but the students were encouraged to brainstorm on their practice tests before they began. This activity was an opinion paper on whether or not Canada and the U.S. should 362

join together. The whole class time was allotted for students to write their papers; however, they could work or read quietly if they finished early.

Teacher Beliefs Practices

and

Classroom

We now compare Mark’s stated beliefs and his actual classroom practice: what has influenced, both in terms of his prior experiences as a student, his prior experiences as a teacher, and the influence of his teacher personality, his beliefs and classroom practices.

Influence of Prior Experiences Richards and Lockhart (1994) suggest that “teachers’ beliefs about learning may be based on their training, their teaching experience, or may go back to their own experience as language learners” (p. 34). During the interviews, it was apparent that some of Mark’s beliefs, such as exposure to the language, interaction, and critical thinking, originated from what he had experienced as a learner. For example, Mark stated that even though he had been given “the opportunity to learn both French and German in school, he had not been given the opportunity to live in either of those countries.” He continued that because he had not been “exposed properly to the language, to absorb the culture and learn the language,” that he “was unable to grasp either language in its entirety.” In addition, in the third interview, he said that he believes that “the students who come to Canada have an advantage to learn the culture as well as the language.” The results from the

363

classroom observations suggest that Mark employs different classroom practices to encourage exposure to Canadian culture. For instance, Mark used the plays The Drawer Boy and Roof Top Gardens, which depict life in Canada. Similarly, Mark refers repeatedly in the interviews to his belief in social interaction as being “a key element when learning a new language” and as he noted, “I did not have any interaction activities when I learned languages, just mostly vocabulary and text work, maybe a little reading out loud from the text.” Classroom observations showed that he made extensive use (evident in nearly every class observed) of pair work and group work to promote interaction between the students in English, thus confirming his stated belief that interaction is an important aspect of second language development. Mark also stated in all three interviews, the importance of critical thinking. Especially when he said that he “was taught to be a critical thinker at a young age by his mother, father and teachers; but even though he has adapted his practices over the years, his belief about the importance of critical thinking remains constant.” The results from the classroom observations show that these beliefs influenced Mark’s choice of activities such as brainstorming and mind-mapping. When asked in the second interview as to why he used these activities, he said “in order to activate his students’ schema for them to begin the process of critical thinking.” He also employed other activities including writing newspaper articles, opinion papers, as well as making use of a writing blog or a wiki, as Mark claimed, “in order to practice their critical thinking skills.” In the third interview Mark commented, “I think that 364

blogging is a real breakthrough. The students get to see what their classmates are writing and then they get to comment if they agree or disagree. This is very good for critical thinking.”

Influence of Teaching Experiences Teacher beliefs are not only formed from learned experiences, they are also formed from teaching experiences (Mok, 1994). Results from this case study show that Mark’s beliefs have also been shaped by his teaching experiences. For example, in the third interview, Mark said that he has “learned from experience that for the students to be comfortable, the material needs to be focused on their needs, wants, and difficulties.” The results from the classroom observations show that in the classroom, Mark often uses authentic and student-centered material such as newspaper articles, You-Tube clips, and personal reading material. Mark maintained that, “when the students are interested in the material, they are comfortable and they learn better.” This is why, for classroom practices, such as silent reading, he allowed the students to read their own independent English materials that they have chosen, including, novels, comics, magazines, and newspapers, because that is what interests them. This result supports Andrew’s (2003) findings where teaching experiences also influenced experienced teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices.

Influence of Teacher Personality According to Richards and Lockhart (1994), some teachers have a personal preference for a particular teaching style or

365

activity because it complements their personality and they are comfortable with the material. In the second interview, Mark said that he “chose the play The Drawer Boy because an element of the curriculum specified that the students learn about Canada and this play takes place in rural Ontario.” Mark pointed out that he “chose this play because it is nonthreatening, the characters are not educated and there are many low frequency, two syllable words and a lot of repetition so it is perfect for these students to follow and the city/country theme is universal so even though they are learning about this culture it is not far removed from theirs either.” Mark also noted that his previous experience with life in rural Ontario is a crucial factor in shaping his own personality. Thus he suggested that when he is teaching, he is able “to refer to those images as he encourages the students to visualize what they are reading in the play.” Johnson (1994) also noted that images from prior experiences help shape beliefs and practices later on in a teacher’s career. The findings from this case study suggest that teachers have a complex list of beliefs that originate before they begin their teaching career. These beliefs then develop while they are teaching as they learn new teaching methods and experience various successes and failures. The results also indicate that teachers’ beliefs may also be influenced by a teacher’s personality factors as well. These beliefs have the ability to control what practices a teacher chooses within the classroom. The impact of this could be very large depending on the teacher’s pedagogical beliefs. This means that whether or not the teacher is aware of his or her beliefs, they affect what is being taught in the classroom and this could have a direct impact on the students. 366

Therefore, from this case study, it is very important for teachers to learn how to reflect on their beliefs and classroom practices on a regular basis to ensure that the students benefit from the practices that they choose in their classroom. It is important for practicing teachers to become aware of their existing teaching beliefs and classroom practices. By consciously reflecting on their beliefs and teaching practices, teachers become more aware of the source of their beliefs as well as how their beliefs and their classroom teaching practices influence each other (Farrell & Lim, 2005; Mok, 1994). Although Mark teaches ESL, he has no formal qualification or training in TESOL education and this is becoming a common fact in many schools in many countries and especially in Canada and the U.S. By taking part in this reflective exercise, Mark became more aware of his beliefs in relation to his classroom practices so that he is now well-positioned to begin to question his taken-for-granted teaching routines, which until now have gone unquestioned. Because Mark was provided an opportunity to articulate his usually tacitly held beliefs and compare these with his actual classroom practices, his beliefs may have been impacted in a way that may not have occurred had he not participated in the study. By consciously questioning his practice with the help of an observer, Mark was able to begin to theorize from this practice thus making a stronger and more explicit link between theory and practice. This increased awareness of the link between theory and practice allowed Mark to have the confidence to not only justify his beliefs to himself and the observer, but also to consider how he should structure his future lessons with the purpose of providing even more

367

opportunities for his ESL students to learn in an optimum classroom environment. Of course it should be noted that one possible limitation of the findings is that it is impossible to verify for certain that the participants’ stated beliefs are his actual beliefs. His stated beliefs could have been an attempt to please the researcher. Another possible limitation is that there is only one subject. The greater the number of participants, the more representative they would be of the general population, and the smaller the effect of individual variability. Time is also a very important factor. This study took place over 10 hours of class time. A more longitudinal study may be more encompassing.

Conclusion The findings from this case study suggest that teachers have a complex list of beliefs unique to individual teachers and that originate before they begin their teaching career. These beliefs then develop during their careers while they are teaching and as they learn new methods and experience instructional successes and failures. The findings also suggest that teachers’ beliefs may depend on teachers’ individual personality factors as well. One thing for certain is that these beliefs have the ability to control what practices a teacher chooses within the classroom. The impact of this could be very large depending on the teacher’s pedagogical beliefs. This means that whether or not the teacher is aware of his or her beliefs, they affect what is being taught in the classroom and this could have a direct impact on the students. Therefore, the results from this case study confirm that it is very

368

important for teachers to learn how to reflect on their beliefs so that they move from the tacit to the level of awareness and that these be compared to classroom practices on a regular basis to see if there is convergence of beliefs and practices. In this way we can try to ensure that our students benefit from the practices that teachers consciously choose in their classes. Basturkmen’s (2012) recent comprehensive review of the research on teacher beliefs and practices indicates that although the majority of studies reviewed (on both experienced and novice teachers) indicate a limited correspondence between teachers’ beliefs and their practices, more experienced teachers’ beliefs are informed by their teaching experiences and as such might be expected to correspond better with teaching practices than would novice teachers’ beliefs and practices. This was also the case of the experienced ESL teacher reported on in this chapter as the findings indicate that his stated beliefs corresponded, for the most part, with his observed classroom practices. The findings of this chapter also indicate that the teacher’s beliefs provided a strong basis for his classroom actions (see also S. Borg, 2011). Thus, from a global perspective, the results of the case study agree with Basturkmen’s (2012) recent comprehensive review in second language teacher education that Mark’s (the experienced teacher) stated beliefs appear to have been a reliable guide to his classroom reality (Pajares, 1992).

369

Traits of an Effective English Teacher As a result of the case study we posit the following traits of an Effective English teachers given that his beliefs and practices generally converged

370

371

References Andrews, S. (2003). “Just like noodles”: L2 teachers and their beliefs about grammar pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching, 9, 351–375. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 1–14. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272. Borg, M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186–188. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109. Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39, 370–380. Breen, M., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 11, 470–501. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London: Continuum Press.

372

Farrell, T.S.C., & Kun, T.K.S. (2007). Language policy, language teachers ‘beliefs, and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 29, 381–403. Farrell, T.S.C., & Lim, P.C.P. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1–13. Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J.R., & Jensen, J. (2005). Methods of research on teaching the English language arts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Johnson, K. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre-service English as a second language teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 439–452. Matsuda, P.K., & Silva, T. (2005). Second language writing research. Perspective on the process of knowledge construction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McKay, S.L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mok, W.E. (1994). Reflecting on reflections: A case study of experienced and inexperienced ESL Teachers. System, 22, 93–111. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

373

Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37, 380–390. Richards, J.C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 441–461.

374

11 When Things Go Wrong Feedback on Teaching Practice in TESOL Stephen Louw, Richard Watson Todd, and Pattamawan Jimarkon

Introduction Private sector pre-service TESOL courses offer a popular and convenient means of entry into the ELT profession for thousands of teachers annually (Ferguson & Donno, 2003), and usually involve intensive full-time courses with at least 100 hours of training and an additional supervised teaching practice component (Brandt, 2006; Phairee et al., 2008). Teaching practice (TP), which is well established as a crucial component of pre-service teacher training courses, offers trainees useful experience in the field, a practical means for putting their newly-gained theoretical knowledge into action, and an opportunity for the trainer to assess the trainees’ uptake of target skills (Leshem & Bar-Hama, 2008). Although TP in itself is valuable, it is the post-observation feedback conference which offers trainers meaningful avenues to help trainee teachers improve. Post-observation feedback typically takes the form of a relatively formal dialogue between the teacher and the supervisor (Farr, 2006), and serves to give the trainee teacher a chance to talk through 375

their reactions to the lesson, identify effective practices, establish a link between theory and practice, increase self-awareness, and encourage a habit of reflective practice (Akbari, 2007; Bailey, 2006; O’Donoghue, 1997; Pekkanli, 2011). Feedback on TP plays a critical role in the training of pre-service teachers, and is arguably one of the most valuable elements of teacher education programs. The implementation of supervised TP in training courses, however, can be a source of tension for both teacher trainees and the course trainers. Brandt (2006), for example, outlines eight critical issues associated with feedback in pre-service CELTA courses. Among these, Brandt found that trainees objected to feedback that was overly lenient or critical and they experienced inconsistency in expectations from different tutors on the course. Although such issues are perhaps unavoidable, their existence undermines the potential benefits of feedback on TP, and therefore of the training course as a whole. Given the large numbers of teachers who enroll in these private sector TESOL programs for whom TP is a first brush with teaching, and the potential value of this experience, the dearth of literature into problems in feedback on TP is surprising. This chapter reports on an investigation into one trainee teacher’s experiences with feedback on TP in a 4-week TESOL program in Bangkok. The starting point is her complaint about the feedback she received following TP. Using a corpus informed approach, we investigate her feedback sessions and use inputs from her expressed expectations for the TP and the trainer’s beliefs about TP to seek out possible sources for the problem. Our analysis of the findings is guided by a dialogical view of 376

meaning making through interaction (Bakhtin, 1979/1986; Linell, 2005).

Background Trainee teachers on Chichester College’s intensive 4-week pre-service TESOL program in Bangkok are required to teach a minimum of four lessons to adults as part of the TP component. These lessons are co-taught with a peer trainee and supervised by one of five trainers, but not by the same trainer every lesson. Our focus in this study is Jenny (all names are pseudonyms), who approached the course coordinator with a complaint about feedback she had received following her TP. Jenny, a Filipina teacher in her early 40s, came into the course already having a certificate in elementary education and over 5 years’ teaching experience. Over the 4 weeks, Jenny received feedback on her TP from two trainers. For her first two TP lessons, Jenny was supervised by Craig, an Australian in his early 30s with considerable teaching and training experience. Jenny’s final two TP sessions were scheduled with Simon, a British trainer in his 50s who had 2 years’ training experience at the time. Following her third TP, Jenny wrote about her experience in her reflective journal as follows: I was quite disappointed with the comment/suggestion that I received from the evening tutor. Although he commented that I and my partner did a great and excellent job in our lesson—a successful, progressive lesson—he mentioned

377

about planning/considering planning for a big size class—that our lesson/activities might have been a great success in our evening lesson, but what if it’s a bigger class of mixed ability students. As teachers, we always consider the number of students, activities to do and the level of learners when planning for a lesson— this comes out naturally! I was just surprised to hear a comment being made/included in the current lesson that I would say is really inappropriate. For feedback, I was hoping for positive and negative, which I could use to improve my teaching skills in the future. I always welcome criticisms and I take it constructively. Jenny’s journal entry highlights two issues with her feedback from Simon. Firstly, she felt that the decisions she made in the TP were in line with what she knew about the learners, so Simon’s hypothetical scenarios were inappropriate. Secondly, although acknowledging the positive feedback she was given, she felt there was a lack of constructive criticism that could benefit her development as a teacher. Jenny’s journal following her second feedback with Simon expressed similar sentiment.

Methodology Investigating the issues brought up by Jenny about her feedback on TP requires a closer look at the feedback conferences themselves, which were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis (Gibbs, 2007). The following contextual data sources related to the feedback sessions were also available for analysis:

378

Jenny’s critical reflections: As part of the goal of encouraging reflective practices, trainees on the course write daily journals and reflections on teaching. Simon’s beliefs on feedback: Prior to the collection of the data from the feedback on TP conferences, course trainers’ beliefs about teacher training were elicited using semi-structured interviews (Louw, Watson Todd, & Jimarkon, 2011). There has been considerable interest in the ways in which beliefs affect practitioner decision making and practice (Borg, 2006; Phipps & Borg, 2009). It would stand to reason that beliefs trainers hold about feedback have an effect on their supervision techniques. Trainer and trainee expectations: Written expectations for the TP sessions were elicited from all participants before each session. With few clear pre-existing expectations of what to focus on in the data, we needed to take a qualitative approach to analyzing the data. Such an approach aims to understand the data from the participants’ perspectives, and is interpretive and humanistic (Seliger & Shohamy, 1989), but findings may be biased by issues such as the selection of the data to be analyzed or presented to the reader (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000; Duff, 2002). To minimize the possibility of bias either in favor of or against the trainee’s account of the feedback, a mixed-methods data analysis (MMDA) was undertaken, which allows the research to benefit from the rich, descriptive findings of a qualitative analysis, yet maintains the potential objectivity afforded by a quantitative approach (Jimarkon & Watson Todd, 2011). Explanatory sequential MMDA (Watson Todd, forthcoming) begins with a quantitative 379

investigation to get an overview of the data and avoid the possibility of bias either in the selection of the data to be focused on or in the investigation itself, and then uses the results to guide a subsequent qualitative analysis of the same data. Our analysis, then, is in three stages. First we investigate the contextual data, to inform our understanding of the TP feedback. Second, following the principles of explanatory sequential MMDA, we conduct a quantitative analysis of Jenny’s four feedback sessions on TP to find pertinent patterns in the discourse. Finally, using these findings, we explore the data qualitatively, framed in dialogicity theory (Linell, 2005).

Findings from Contextual Data In her expectations prior to the lesson with Simon, Jenny wrote: I expect that our lesson would run smoothly. In case I make mistakes/missed out anything, I do hope that our tutor will not hesitate to jump in and help out. I expect to get positive and negative feedback so I’ll know my strengths and weaknesses—areas I need to maintain and areas that I still need focusing/improving on. Jenny was expecting balanced and specific feedback on the outcomes of the lesson with the aim of developing her teaching methodology. We have already seen from Jenny’s reflections on the feedback from Simon that this expectation was not met.

380

In his expectations of the TP with Jenny, Simon wrote: Jenny seems happy with her lesson, and confident enough not to need much input from me. I have not observed Jenny before, so I am unsure what to expect. Especially so late on in the course. Simon perceives Jenny as a capable and confident teacher and is expecting her to perform well and to need little input. Simon’s expectations here are clearly at odds with Jenny’s own expectations of active involvement from the trainer. In the interview with Simon, held 3 months before the TP session, he expressed his belief in the need for the trainer to show empathy for trainees during the feedback on TP. I’m just… understanding what they are going through the fact that they’ve just… come from England… never taught before… […] three hours, four hours to prepare a lesson, so… empathy. I think empathy would be, you’ve got to be empathetic. For Simon, the sheer intensity of the course creates an environment in which trainees need support, encouragement, and confidence building. In addition, Simon sees the feedback on TP as a valuable opportunity to give trainees insights on the teaching environments facing them once the course is finished. I look at the students and think well actually they might just fit into the system somewhere.

381

For somebody that’s taught before, right, really to guide them towards the way that we’re teaching in Thailand. Simon tries to build the trainees’ strengths and guide them accordingly within the Thai teaching context. In this way, he sees the feedback on teaching practice as providing a link to the real world of teaching.

Quantitative Analysis Jenny’s first two TP sessions were supervised by Craig and the final two by Simon. We can, therefore, employ the data from her four sessions to compare the two pairs of supervision sessions. As an initial analysis, Table 11.1 summarizes each of Jenny’s four supervision sessions. Backchannel cues (such as ‘mm,’ ‘yeah,’ or ‘uhuh’), which are a useful signal of engagement as a listener in the dialogue (Farr, 2006; Fox Tree, Table 11.1 Summary of Data From Jenny’s Turns for Each of the Four Feedback Sessions

382

2007), are at their highest in Jenny’s first session, suggesting perhaps that in this sessions Jenny was engaged but as yet unwilling to get too involved in the feedback dialogue. In her second session, backchannel turns are lower, but Jenny’s word count and average turn length, which give a sense of her involvement in the discourse during the feedback session (Duff, 2002), are at their highest. Also high in the second session is Jenny’s proportion of contributing turns (50%), which we define as a turn that brings new information (Carroll, 1999) into the dialogue (as opposed to backchannel cues, confirmations, or repetitions), indicating greater control over the feedback through the co-construction of the dialogue. The greater involvement and participation in the dialogue we see in Jenny’s second session may be ascribed to a growing confidence in her role in the feedback process. This momentum, however, is lost in sessions three and four, where Jenny takes fewer and shorter turns, and makes fewer 383

contributions, signifying lower levels of control and involvement in Simon’s feedback sessions. Although this initial analysis provides some insights into Jenny’s experience, a deeper understanding may be gained through an analysis of the lexico-grammatical frequencies in the data using corpus analysis tools (Koester, 2002). Using the two pairs of feedback sessions, two small corpora were created. They were analyzed using AntConc (Anthony, 2004), a freeware concordance program which calculates relative frequency of lexical items in the corpus, measured as log likelihood, or keyness (Baker, 2006). The analysis of the top 15 keywords from the two corpora, sorted by keyness, highlights interesting differences between Simon and Craig’s feedback sessions. Starting with the content words, which can indicate aboutness (Scott & Tribble, 2006), Simon’s content words (production, Table 11.2 Keyword Output for Feedback on TP for Simon and Craig

384

pictures, exercises, practice) show a focus on the planning elements of the lesson, whereas Craig’s (task, feedback, listen, fortune) address elements of the tasks in the lesson. Further evidence of this is to be found by examining contrasting keywords, in this case verb usage and educational setting. The keyword analysis shows that Simon uses verbs in the present and future tense (keywords 6 and 7), whereas Craig favors the past tense (keyword 4). Concordance lines of ‘is’ from Simon’s sessions (table 9) reveal how Simon generalizes in his feedback about teaching (lines 1 and 4, for example) and the nature of students (line 3), but makes limited references to the recently taught TP session itself (lines 5). In contrast, the concordance lines from Craig’s feedback for ‘were’ (Table 11.4) show how he focuses much more on specific aspects of the recently taught TP class.

385

The second contrast between Simon and Craig’s feedback is the difference in their focus on educational settings: ‘school’ in Simon’s feedback (keyword 5), and ‘class’ for Craig (keyword 2). The TP sessions in the Chichester College TESOL course in Bangkok are conducted with a relatively small class of volunteer students in a classroom in a commercial highrise Table 11.3Sample Concordance Lines for ‘Is’ in Simon’s Feedback Sessions

Table 11.4 Sample Concordance Lines for ‘Were’ in Craig’s Feedback Sessions

386

Table 11.5 Concordance Lines for ‘School’ in Simon’s Feedback Sessions

Table 11.6 Sample Concordance Lines for ‘Class’ in Craig’s Feedback Sessions

office, making the high occurrence of ‘school’ as a keyword in Simon’s feedback interesting. The concordance lines for this keyword (Table 11.5), reveal how Simon draws attention in his feedback to the realities of teaching beyond the TP classroom environment. Concordance lines of ‘class’ from Craig’s feedback (Table 11.6) show that he focuses specifically on aspects of the recently taught lesson, like giving instructions (line 2) and

387

action zones (line 3). Even so, like Simon, Craig acknowledges the unusual nature of this teaching environment (in lines 1 and 5), but does not make this a central feature of his feedback in the way that Simon does. Because noticeably different language use emerged in Simon and Craig’s feedback sessions, we thought it worth investigating how Jenny’s language differed with the two trainers. Jenny’s turns were isolated from the full data set to create two specific sub-corpora, one consisting of her turns with Simon, and the other of her turns with Craig. The keyword output of the analysis is presented in Table 11.7. A notable pattern in Table 11.7 concerns Jenny’s use of pronouns: first person with Simon (keywords 2 and 10), and third person with Craig (keyword 1). The concordance lines of the pronouns from Jenny’s feedback with Table 11.7 Keyword Output for Jenny’s Turns Only

388

Table 11.8 Sample Concordance Lines for ‘We’ in Jenny’s Discourse From Simon’s Sessions

Table 11.9 Sample Concordance Lines for ‘They’ in Jenny’s Discourse From Craig’s Sessionss

Simon (Table 11.8) give a sense of her need to justify her planning (line 3 and 5) and classroom decisions (line 1 and 2). In contrast, the higher occurrence of third person pronouns in Jenny’s sessions with Craig is revealed to be a function of her focus on the language learners and their response to the tasks (Table 11.9).

389

In summary, then, the quantitative analysis has highlighted a number of interesting differences between Jenny’s feedback with Simon and Craig: • Jenny seems to have been more involved and to have had more control over the discourse in Craig’s sessions. • Simon’s feedback seemed to focus more closely on elements relating to planning, whereas Craig’s focused more on the implementation and outcomes of the tasks in the lessons. • In his feedback, Simon tended towards present tense verb usage and a focus on generalizations about teaching, whereas Craig’s feedback showed greater use of past tense, and specific events in the TP lesson. • Simon focused more on teaching environments beyond the TP classroom, whereas Craig’s feedback was more centred on the TP class itself. • Jenny’s discourse favored greater self-reference in Simon’s feedback, whereas in Craig’s feedback sessions her focus was the language learners. Our overall goal in the analysis is to find the source of Jenny’s complaint, and our quantitative analysis so far has provided clues about the differences between the two trainers and Jenny’s response to them. These key findings provide a focus for a closer qualitative analysis of the feedback.

Qualitative Analysis Many of the benefits associated with feedback on TP, such as reflection and self-awareness, are dependent on the

390

interaction between the trainer and the trainee(s) in the feedback conference. Because this interaction is a dialogue between the trainer and trainee, bound socially and culturally, dialogicity theory is relevant to an analysis of the feedback on TP (Farr, 2006). Dialogicity is based on four broad principles (Blommaert, 2005; Linell, 2005, 2010): 1. Communication is an active meaning-making process which is aided by the sociocultural resources of the interlocutors; 2. Communicative acts are interdependent. The possible meaning of the dialogue does not lie in the utterance itself, but on its context and the response of the audience; 3. Meaning making in dialogue is sequential in that each utterance’s interpretation is subject to its temporal position in the context; and 4. Dialogue is the result of active co-construction by interlocutors, rather than a transfer of pre-formed thoughts. Where these underlying principles are absent, the dialogue and meaning-making process may be compromised (Blommaert, 2005) by the imposition of authority, partial-sharedness, or competing goals (Peled-Elhanan & Blum-Kulka, 2006). The dialogue between the trainer and the trainee in feedback on TP is not carried out between equals. Because trainers hold power by virtue of their roles as expert, knower, supervisor, and evaluator (Bailey, 2006), they can allocate or withdraw

391

turns, control and direct agendas, and make evaluations. Creating a responsive understanding in such an environment involves an active effort on the part of the trainer to mediate this power, the success of which will determine whether the feedback dialogue provides a transformative meaning-making opportunity. We use dialogicity theory to guide our understanding of the dialogue through three extracts from Jenny’s feedback sessions, the selection of which is based on the findings of the quantitative analysis, as they are illustrative of the elements identified in the corpus output as worthy of investigation. Extract one is from Jenny’s third feedback session, following a lesson taught with a co-trainee, Charles, and supervised by Simon. The use of first person pronouns is evident in each of Jenny’s turns, and turn 69 demonstrates Simon’s focus on abstractions rather than on the specifics Extract 11.1 Feedback Session 3—Simon, Jenny and Charles

392

of the lesson recently taught. The extract also gives an indication of Simon’s control over the session, evident from his question (turn 59), the dismissal of Charles’ bid (turn 68), and the evaluation and commentary (turns 69). Dialogically, until turn 69, Simon is fairly passive (in the Bakhtinian sense of lacking an articulated response), missing opportunities to co-construct with Jenny an understanding of her planning decisions. In turn 69 Simon starts with an explicit positive evaluation of Jenny and Charles’ idea. This praise is sequential; it is understood here in its place as an addendum to the question about the idea in turn 59. However, Simon’s turn lacks interdependence on the input provided by Jenny’s previous turns regarding indecision about grouping, and his judgement of the reason for success of the activity (the ‘pictures’) lacks co-construction with the trainees. In the second half of turn 69 Simon reiterates a former point about the classroom setting (indicated by ‘again’) in which

393

the dialogic principles are compromised further. Although it could be argued Simon’s discussion about classroom situations is sequential in that it links to a preceding turn (not included in this extract), there is a marked gap to the reference, weakening the dialogue’s sequentiality. Additionally, Simon’s return to the topic of a classroom situation is not co-constructed from the dialogue, but rather imposed onto the discourse. The extract shows how, in breaking from the principles of dialogicity, Simon’s turns make the dialogue subject to asymmetry and lack of co-construction that prejudices effective meaning making. Extract 11.2 Feedback Session 2—Craig, Jenny and Lionel

Extract 11.2 from Jenny’s second lesson, which was supervised by Craig and co-taught with Lionel, illustrates the focus in Jenny’s feedback with Craig on the activities and 394

student responses in the class which has just been taught through the use of third person pronouns and past tense verbs. There is also evidence of how Craig encourages involvement through a use of questions and prompts. The extract gives a much clearer picture of the dialogical processes of active meaning making, interdependence, sequentiality, and co-construction. Craig’s point in turn 109 about the lack of focus in the presentations is carefully co-constructed through the dialogue. In turn 103, for example, Craig acknowledges Jenny’s evaluation of learner involvement, but rephrases Jenny’s ‘checking’ to ‘chatting’ to guide meaning towards the problematic nature of the learners’ behavior. Craig continues to co-construct this meaning with Jenny (turn 105) to reach the point where he can make his evaluation in turn 107. Sequentially, Craig withholds his interpretation of the events until he is certain that Jenny shares his understanding of the learners’ restlessness. Craig makes his turns dependent both on Jenny’s understanding and acknowledgment of the situation, and on the context in which the event happened. As part of the trainers’ responsibilities, Simon and Craig are both evaluating the trainees’ teaching. However, the ways in which this is done are very different. Craig’s evaluation is implicit, does not include any overt judgemental language and is based on a co-constructed understanding of the lesson. Simon, on the other hand, makes an explicit judgment and bases this on his own understanding of the use of pictures, an aspect of the lesson which has not been co-constructed. We noted earlier that active meaning making in dialogicity is dependent on the context in which it occurs. Analysis of the 395

contextual issues relating to feedback on TP revealed that both Jenny and Simon were bound by their own implicit contextual goals. In Extract 11.3, we turn our attention to these contextual issues in the dialogical process, and how they were manifested in Jenny’s feedback session with Simon. The elements we now associate with Simon’s feedback technique are evident in this extract: broad generalizations, a focus outside of the TP environment, and controlled dialogue which lacks co-construction. However, the feedback is consistent with Simon’s beliefs. Following his belief that trainees need supportive feedback, he repeatedly provides positive reinforcement for Jenny’s successes. Also, consistent with his belief that feedback should provide insights into the realities facing teachers beyond the course, Simon notes the difficulties that may be experienced with bigger and younger classes. From Simon’s perspective, the feedback has achieved a set of implicit goals matching his beliefs. From the perspective of Jenny’s expectations, however, the feedback has been less successful. She has received little of her expected critical feedback to develop her teaching skills. Notably missing here is any indication of Extract 11.3 Feedback Session 4—Simon, Jenny and Andrew

396

what exactly was amiss with her instructions or guidance on how they can be improved. Extract 11.3 shows how Simon and Jenny have entered the feedback session with conflicting contextual frameworks and communicative purposes which serve to undermine co-constructive, interdependent dialogue and thus the potential for shared meaning making.

Discussion Our purpose in this chapter is not to make an indictment of feedback on TP. The value and usefulness of such feedback and its importance in teacher training are indisputable, but things can go wrong and its purposes can be derailed. Analyzing problematic feedback sessions allows us to gain

397

insights into the feedback process and of the factors that influence it. In viewing TP from the perspective of dialogicity we can explain Craig’s success in his feedback as resulting, at least in part, from his implementation of the principles of dialogicity in his feedback sessions. Simon’s sessions, however, are subject to the imposition of meaning and a lack of interdependence and co-construction, with the result that effective meaning making with Jenny is forfeited. Dialogicity provides a useful framework for looking at the dialogue between Jenny and Simon in the feedback sessions, but does not explain why Simon takes this approach. The answer seems to lie in Simon’s close adherence to the beliefs he holds about TP, providing empathy and encouragement, and introducing trainees to the wider teaching environment. These beliefs are not inherently problematic. The literature on TP argues for a supportive context for feedback on TP (e.g., Randall & Thornton, 2001) and Simon’s goal of giving trainees a ‘bigger picture’ seems sensible, particularly for trainees who are new to the field. What is problematic, at least for Jenny, is that these beliefs are a poor match for her expectations as a trainee. Whereas Jenny is ready for constructive criticism on her teaching, Simon continues using an approach with her that is based on the needs of new teachers. In his position as supervisor of the feedback, Simon is able to impose his implicit goals on the dialogue. Jenny’s contributions to the dialogue, where they occur, are seen by Simon as a poor fit to his objectives, but by ignoring these opportunities to create dialogue, and instead imposing his 398

own meaning into the dialogue, effective co-construction of meaning is undermined. Whereas Simon’s beliefs may have led to many successful feedback sessions with novice teachers, in Jenny’s case they result in trainee disappointment. This does not mean, however, that the trainers should simply bend to trainees’ expectations. In this case, Jenny’s expectation of the trainer intervening in the lesson if problems occurred is specifically prohibited by the course management. Rather, a truly co-constructed dialogue requires awareness of and consideration for other participants’ goals and expectations in the process of making meaning. Basing TP feedback sessions around the principles of dialogicity, while still allowing for the trainers’ greater expertise and power, should reduce the chances of things going wrong in this vital component of teacher training.

References Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System, 35, 192–207. Anthony, L. (2004). AntConc: A learner and classroom friendly, multi-platform corpus analysis toolkit. Paper presented at the IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning, Tokyo, Japan. Bailey, K.M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

399

Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V.W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1979) Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum. Brandt, C. (2006). Allowing for practice: A critical issue in TESOL teacher preparation. ELT Journal, 60, 355–364. Carroll, D.W. (1999). Psychology of language. Pacific Grove: Brooks & Cole Publishing. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge. Duff, P.A. (2002). Research approaches in applied linguistics. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 13–23). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Farr, F. (2006). Reflecting on reflections: The spoken word as a professional development tool in language teacher education. In R. Hughes (Ed.), Spoken English, TESOL and applied linguistics: Challenges for theory and practice (pp. 192–215). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

400

Ferguson, G., & Donno, S. (2003). One month teacher training courses: Time for a change? ELT Journal, 57, 26–33. Fox Tree, J.E. (2007). Folk notions of um and uh, you know and like. Text & Talk, 27, 297–314. Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles: Sage. Jimarkon, P., & Watson Todd, R. (2011). Using quantitative methods as a framework for qualitative analyses. Paper presented at the International Conference: Doing Research in Applied Linguistics, Bangkok, Thailand. Koester, A.J. (2002). The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching of communicative functions. System, 30, 167–184. Leshem, S., & Bar-Hama, R. (2008). Evaluating teaching practice. ELT Journal, 62, 257–265. Linell, P. (2005). Towards a dialogical linguistics. Paper presented at the XII International Bakhtin Conference, Jyväskylä, Finland. Linell, P. (2010). Communicative activity types as organizations in discourse and discourses in organizations. In S. Tanskanen, M. Helasvuo, M. Johansson, & M. Raitaniemi (Eds.), Discourses in interaction (pp. 33–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Louw, S., Watson Todd, R., & Jimarkon, P. (2011). Active listening in qualitative research interviews. Paper presented at

401

the International Conference: Doing Research in Applied Linguistics, KMUTT, Bangkok, Thailand. O’Donoghue, C. (1997). Trainer induction: Reflecting on parallels between new trainers and teacher trainees. In I. McGrath (Ed.), Learning to train: Perspectives on the development of language teacher training. Hemel Hampstead: Prentice Hall. Pekkanli, I. (2011). Designing a questionnaire attempting to discover mentors’ feedback on professionalism of the foreign language teacher candidate. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 600–604. Peled-Elhanan, N., & Blum-Kulka, S. (2006). Dialogue in the Israeli classroom. Language and Education, 20, 110–127. Phairee, C., Sanitchon, N., Suchanangthong, I., Graham, S., Jidapa, J., de Groot, F.O., et al. (2008). The teaching practicum in Thailand: Three perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 655–659. Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37, 380–390. Randall, M., & Thornton, B. (2001). Advising and supporting teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Scott, M., & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

402

Seliger, H.W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Watson Todd, R. (forthcoming). Mixed methods data analysis in applied linguistics. rEFLections.

403

12 Can Primary-Age Pupils Produce Teaching Materials? Ian McGrath

Introduction The concept of learner-generated material has been around in EFL/ESL circles for some time now. What could be more learner-centered, after all, than learners not simply choosing materials (Tudor, 1993; Wright, 1987) but also producing the materials through which they and others will learn (Clarke, 1989; Riggenbach, 1988; Whitaker, 1983). However, to judge by the relative paucity of first-hand reports, EFL/ESL school teachers have not embraced this idea with any enthusiasm. One possibility is that the arguments that have been put forward in the professional literature have not reached these teachers; another, that teachers have doubts about ceding to learners a responsibility (for the selection and design of materials) which they have traditionally held; and yet another, that learners—especially younger learners and those with limited language proficiency—are felt to be incapable of producing useful materials.

404

This chapter describes and evaluates an educational intervention which had two primary aims: to raise awareness among Singaporean school teachers of the possible benefits of learner-generated materials, and to assess the actual benefits of involving primary-age pupils in materials generation.

Learner-Generated Global Perspective

Materials:

The

What Are Learner-Generated Materials? For the purposes of this study, the term ‘learner-generated materials’ will be used rather broadly to include: • Materials selected by learners for classroom use • Learner products exploited by a teacher for teaching purposes • Materials created by learners for use by other learners Examples of all three types will be provided later in the chapter.

Justifications Arguments for learner-generated materials have tended to be made on pragmatic and pedagogic rather than on theoretical grounds. Both perspectives are represented in Allwright’s (1979) paper, which crisply characterizes teachers as “overloaded” and learners as “underinvolved” (p. 117). However, Allwright is here concerned more generally with the need to redistribute 405

management responsibilities and does not specifically discuss the possibility of learners producing materials. The influence of this paper is nevertheless acknowledged in later papers by Littlejohn (1983) and Clarke (1989), both of whom develop the pedagogic argument for greater learner involvement in the selection and design of learning materials. Littlejohn (1983), for instance, points out: “we should not expect every student to learn in the same way.… Seen in this light, the traditional teacher-led classroom can only be a partially-successful arrangement” (p. 597). Clarke (1989) sets out five ‘principles’ which underlie his view of learner involvement in materials adaptation and development. Four of these highlight learner roles; the fifth is an effect. As summarized in McGrath (2002, pp. 171–172), these are: • Learner as materials writer and collaborator: Working cooperatively with other learners to produce materials means that learners are active collaborators in the learning environment rather than merely ‘language receivers’; working on the tasks prepared by others in the class also leads to a higher degree of commitment than might otherwise be the case. • Learner as problem solver: Devising a task for other learners is a meaningful activity for the problem-setter; language is both the focus of the task and the means by which it is achieved. • Learner as knower: When constructing tasks based on given materials learners are in the position of ‘knower’ rather than ‘assimilator’; when required to research a task in order to produce material, they become ‘expert.’ • Learner as evaluator and assessor: The act of adapting and producing material makes learners 406

better able to make judgments about the relevance and interest of what they have been doing and their own level of achievement; the resulting insights can be used to shape future materials. • Learner commitment: Creative involvement in the adaptation of materials engages the learner’s interest and leads to a greater degree of commitment. (based on Clarke, 1989, p. 135) Underlying several of these points is the broader humanistic argument that learners have relevant knowledge in the form of past experiences, background knowledge, interests, and creative skills (Campbell & Kryszewska, 1992; Coombe & Kinney, 2010; Deller, 1990). Acknowledging learner capacities by enabling learners to play a more active role in their learning, it is suggested, has a variety of further benefits on an individual level and for relationships within a class. Gill (2008) claims that in creating materials, learners have to review content knowledge, and that where group collaboration is involved, this encourages greater empathy and the development of social bonds. Coombe and Kinney (2010), writing in support of learner involvement in the preparation and conduct of listening assessment activities, argue similarly that the effects include “increased group solidarity,” (p. 21) but also “increased maturity and responsibility among students” (p. 21) and a greater “awareness of learning and test-taking strategies.” (p. 21) The relationship between learner-generated materials and the facilitation of learner autonomy is also noted by Riggenbach (1988): “Student-generated materials are a means

407

by which students may be brought into the role of active participant in their own language learning processes… they learn some of the skills necessary to shape and motivate their own language learning progress” (p. 118). Riggenbach (1988) also relates the benefits of interaction to the second language acquisition literature and the notions of anxiety reduction and input modification (e.g., Pica & Doughty, 1985). Increased motivation, implied in Clarke’s (1989) final principle, is seen as a further positive outcome (e.g., Assinder, 1991; McGrath, 2002; Wiseman, 1990). Pragmatic arguments typically focus on both teacher overload and, in certain contexts, the lack of suitable materials (Campbell & Kryszewska, 1992; Wiseman, 1990). These reasons are related, of course, when teachers have a full teaching timetable but the teaching materials available are either inappropriate or insufficient. In such situations, it is argued, learner-generated materials are ideal because they reflect students’ interests and are level-appropriate (Campbell & Kryszewska, 1992; McGrath, 2002). Such materials are also free (Riggenbach, 1988), and avoid any concerns about copyright infringement (Swales, 1992). Passing the responsibility to learners for materials production also enables the teacher to give more time to encouraging and supporting learning (Gill, 2008).

Practical Implementation Various suggestions have been made for the types of materials that learners might produce. These include: flashcards (Gill, 2008; Swales, 1992); questions on texts (Clarke, 1989; Whitaker, 1983); exercises and worksheets,

408

including computer-aided materials (Clarke, 1989; Simpson, 2006; Swales, 1992); tests (Clarke, 1989; Coombe & Kinney, 2010); and extensive reading materials (Jacobs). Swales (1992) provides examples of student-generated materials at three levels (flashcards, a worksheet, a questionnaire). Recent contributions to the general educational literature highlight the possibilities afforded by technology (see, e.g., Morrison, Bryan, & Chilcoat, 2002, on student-generated comic books; Wheeler, Yeomans, & Wheeler, 2008, on wikis; and Lee, McLoughlin, & Chan, 2008, on podcasts). Riggenbach (1988) offers a three-way categorization of types of activity that can yield materials. These are: (1) performance (e.g., a student’s oral presentation, which can be used as the basis for both self-evaluation and peer-evaluation); (2) participation (e.g., conversation/ interview data that can be transcribed and thus made available for a variety of other purposes); and (3) observation (where students make detailed field notes of native speakers’ use of language, and record them or use off-air recordings in order to study specific conversational strategies or language functions). In all these activities, the learner becomes a researcher of language. Learner-generated corpora (e.g., Mishan, 2004; Willis, 2011) are an extension of this idea. McGrath (2002) presents a rather broader set of activity categories based on published reports and his own experience. These are: (1) utilizing learner language; (2) learner-produced exercises and worksheets; (3) learners as teachers; and (4) learner-based teaching. The examples given of Category 1, which include learner-generated texts for use with other learners (Bicknell, 1999; Forman & Ellis, 1991) and drama 409

activities (Wessels, 1991), constitute a development of Riggenbach’s (1988) notion of performance data. Examples of Category 3 can be seen in Littlejohn (1983) and Assinder (1991); Deller (1990) and Campbell and Kryszewska (1992) are book-length examples of Category 4.

Caveats Although some of the published reports refer to studies conducted over a period of time and learners of lower-intermediate level were included (Assinder, 1991; Littlejohn, 1983), for the most part learners were older teenagers/university students. This leaves open the question of how younger learners would respond and whether those with very limited proficiency would be capable of producing useful materials. The possibility that culturally-conditioned attitudes towards teacher-learner roles might also affect the success of attempts to involve learners in materials development has, however, been recognized. Littlejohn (1983, p. 599) points out: “We can’t expect major shifts in traditional roles to be easy. There is a widespread belief that in order to learn one has to be taught.… We should not be very surprised if learners view any attempt to involve them more in course management as either very threatening or irresponsible,” and McGrath (2002, p. 177) similarly points out: “In some contexts… the attempt to transfer responsibility for classroom decision-making from teacher to learners may be seen as an abdication of responsibility,” predictions which are illustrated by the negative reactions to peer

410

evaluation described in Sengupta’s (1998) study of teenage girls in Hong Kong. McGrath (2002) adds: If learner-centered teaching is to work, learners must be willing to share in the decision-making process, and patient preparation may be necessary before they are ready for this and willing to legitimate less familiar types of activity. Even when this is possible, the teacher’s responsibility remains undiminished. (McGrath, 2002, p. 177)

A Local Initiative The Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore encourages collaborative learning and self-directed learning as part of its vision of “21st century skills,” and exhorts teachers to “Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM). Since 2006, the MOE has also been promoting the use in primary schools of Big Books (large-format picture books) and specially prepared linked resources—the “Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading” (STELLAR) program—as an alternative to the use of textbooks. In effect, although suggestions are provided by the MOE, the Big Books constitute source texts which can be exploited for their content and language in whatever way the teacher decides. On the face of it, then, this is a context in which teachers have considerable freedom and might be expected to welcome experimentation with learner-generated materials, because this would not only allow them to implement the Ministry’s learner-centered vision of self-directed and collaborative learning in concrete ways, but might also yield an additional teaching–learning resource.

411

The teachers involved in the initiative described in the remainder of this chapter were following courses taught by the author on materials selection, evaluation, and design in the academic year 2010–2011 as part of continuing professional development programs (an in-service BEd for primary school teachers and an MEd program for primary and secondary school teachers) at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. Both groups of course participants were introduced to the theory and practice of learner-generated material through reading, experiential learning (an example in which they acted as learners), discussion, and small-scale action research projects in their own classrooms. They then shared their findings in classroom discussions, and finally wrote up their studies as assessed coursework. Thirty-eight of the teachers, whose experience ranged from 3.5 to 30 years, were teaching primary school pupils aged 6 (P1) to 11 (P6). With a view to assessing the feasibility of primary-age learners producing usable materials, the chapter presents a selective qualitative meta-analysis of the reports of these teachers. All quotations are used with the consent of the teachers concerned. Teachers who preferred to be anonymous are referred to as T1, T2, and so on.

Teacher Concerns The teachers’ accounts express a range of feelings prior to the commencement of their classroom studies, among them nervous anticipation. One referred to her “trepidation”; several teachers admitted to feeling “apprehensive”: “I was quite apprehensive of its effectiveness. I was not sure of its outcome or even how the pupils would respond to this type of learning” (T1). Others echoed the concern expressed here 412

about outcomes. One teacher, who had planned that her pupils would create questions on the newspaper texts she had selected, ‘was doubtful whether it would work.… I had anticipated problems of invalid questions which were not related to the text or had no specific answers in the text’. (Doreen). Another, who wanted her P6 learners to provide feedback on each other’s writing, had doubts about the appropriateness of exposing students to ‘error-laden’ texts: ‘I was skeptical about the value of using pupil-generated text for teaching. Shouldn’t any materials presented to the pupils be as perfect as possible? (…) What do I do if the materials churned out of this experiment are really unusable? How much editing do I need to do? These were the questions that ran through my mind. I was not very optimistic of the outcome (…)’. (Regina)

The Materials Teachers’ decisions relating to the language learning objectives of the activities they devised were influenced by their awareness of their pupils’ difficulties, and in many cases by the demands of examination formats (e.g., describe a picture; answer questions based on a graphic stimulus—i.e., a poster or invitation; write a composition based on a given situation and prompts). Nevertheless, activities with a similar objective often took a different form, and particular design principles (e.g., jumbling elements) were exploited in different ways. Table 16 below illustrates some of this variety.

413

Brief descriptions of two activities may help to illustrate the relationship between age/level and task but also the care and imagination which teachers brought to the tasks they devised. In a P2 class, pupils were shown an example of an invitation to a birthday party and then went on to make their own using colored paper and their own colored pencils, and decorating them as they wished. The teacher corrected any errors in pencil, and the pupils made the amendments, decided on one of their classmates to invite, and posted their cards in the class mail box. The post boy or girl for the day delivered the invitations, pupils wrote Table 12.1 Examples of Activities for Pupils Aged 6–11

414

acceptance letters—again with teacher guidance—and these letters were duly delivered. In itself, this activity has a satisfying completeness about it, but the teacher devised a further stage linked to the concept of pictorial graphs, which

415

the pupils had encountered in P1. All pupils selected five cards which they felt were well designed and were then given a star-shaped sticker with which to nominate their favorite card. The resulting graph produced by the teacher allowed for further language practice, and the pupils “liked the fact that their opinions mattered” in deciding which card was the best designed (T3). In a P3 class, pupils worked through a series of carefully graded activities on frogs and toads in order to produce information booklets based on a template provided by the teacher. The activity might have been considered completed at this point, but the teacher went on to ask pupils for their ideas on how to showcase their products. Rather than a classroom display, they suggested a quiz on frogs and toads for all P3 pupils, to be held in a lesson-break at the end of the week. The idea was approved, and questions were formulated. Prizes, needless to say, were frog clips and frog bookmarks (T9).

Evaluating Effects on Learners Teachers’ Observations of Affective Benefits A variety of effects on learners was observed, with affective factors being mentioned most frequently, perhaps because these were the most striking. Pupils who were told that they would be creating materials for use by other learners were “excited” and “enthusiastic.” The following description is typical:‘I… went through with them the aim of this experiment and how they will be the “designers and co-authors” of this learner-generated material for future 416

learners. All were smiling and grinning with excitement’. (Rayhan). Pupils whose work was selected for use were “thrilled” and “proud”: ‘the pupils found it… thrilling to see their own creations being used in place of the textbook or teacher produced work’. (Dhilshaadh). ‘students from Group 4 were seen beaming throughout the lesson feeling proud that their creative work was being used’. (T10). In one class, groups were asked to read aloud to the rest of the class what they had written: ‘it is clear how deep a sense of accomplishment they experience from their smiles and their chuckles. The other groups are then asked to say three best things (appreciation) that they see in their friends’ work. The positive affirmations make the recipients glow with pride’. (Anusuya). In another class, the compliments were spontaneous: ‘Some [pupils] even complimented Group 4 members for the good work they had done’. (T10). The teacher’s use of ‘even’ here clearly expresses her own surprise at this. During activities, there was also evidence of serious commitment. In one class, groups created their own stories which were then passed from one group to other groups for comment on, successively, spelling, tenses, and content, before being passed back to the originating group for rewriting. The teacher noted: ‘even… students who were normally disengaged in writing lessons were contributing their ideas as well as taking the effort to correct their peers’ work. (T11). ‘Pupils even seemed to take extra care because they knew their work would be seen by other pupils. Everybody tried to make their piece of work as ‘perfect’ as possible as they knew it was going to be presented to many others. (T12).

417

Several instances are mentioned of students being keen to do more than they were expected to. In the class where students wrote poems, ‘some pairs were even motivated to write a second poem.… There was also one particular student who wrote a separate poem at home, and presented it to me next day. I promptly put it up on the notice board for everyone to share and learn. (T13). Enhanced motivation was also evident in pupils’ self-directed efforts outside class time. In the class which worked on the frogs and toads booklets, pupils brought additional resources to class (books borrowed from the library, information from the internet) without being asked to do so. ‘They were so motivated that they could be heard and seen talking about frogs and toads for the rest of the week! and there was ‘a glitter in their eyes’ as they looked forward to the day of the quiz’. (T9)

Linguistic Benefits In one class, pupils worked individually to create questions on texts provided by the teacher, and then exchanged questions. The teacher comments: During the question-and-answer session.… I observed pupils seeking clarification when they were not sure what was being asked. Some pupils rephrased their questions to make them grammatically correct and easier to understand. They also helped each other understand some vocabulary… underlined in the article. Last but not least, they guided their partners to the right answer when they had difficulty. (Joyce) Another teacher provided particularly persuasive evidence of the linguistic benefits of a peer evaluation activity in a P6 class. The pupils had discussed accidents and were then asked 418

to write an account of an accident they had witnessed or heard about. In the next example, Student A’s written narrative is the focus of Student B’s interrogation. Student A: Written Narrative Version 1 It was a fearful moment when I heard about my cousin been through a surgery. He broke into uncontrollable sobs as his piercing pain on his backside. This incident happened at Penang, 2010. He was riding a motorcycle on a road junction when an on-coming motorcyclist came. My cousin flung out of his motorcycle and landed on his butt with a sharp piece of glass on the road. He was cut and when he was sent to the hospital. His wound was severe and the doctor had to use his ankle knee to patch up his butt skin. Student B’s comments (transcript) B: I don’t understand what you mean by when you say “He broke into uncontrollable sobs as his piercing pain on his backside” what does that mean? A: Er.… So he was crying because of the piercing pain. B: Oh so not as the piercing pain. So this is the happen at Penang. I don’t think is should be “at” should be “in.” Ok then, you also say “My cousin flung out of his motorcycle and landed on his butt with a sharp piece of glass on the road” but where did the sharp piece of glass came from? A: On the road. B: But it was there? A: Yes it was there the whole time. B: Oh ok, then you say “his ankle knee to patch up is butt skin” what do you mean by that?

419

A: The doctor cut his ankle knee to patch up … B: I feel like not very clear. So you mean the doctor use the ankle knee’s skin to patch up. A: Ya. Changes stimulated by Student B’s comments are highlighted in the revised version, next. Student A: Written Narrative Version 2 It was a fearful moment when I heard about my cousin been through a surgery. He broke into uncontrollable sobs triggered by the piercing pain on his backside. This incident happened in Penang, 2010. He was riding a motorcycle along a road junction when an on-coming motorcyclist came. My cousin was flung out of his motorcycle and landed on his butt where a sharp piece of glass was already on the ground. He was cut and sent to the hospital. His wound was severe and the doctor had to use the skin from his knee to patched up his skin on his butt. (Regina) One of the interesting features of these particular examples is, of course, the willingness of students to accept and act on feedback from each other, and these were not isolated examples. In other classes, pupils also proved receptive to evaluative comments made by peers on their reading aloud. In one class, pupils’ work was displayed for others to see: During the gallery walk… pupils went around the classroom, viewing one another’s work pieces and at the same time, jotting down learning 420

points and comments. Some thoughts that were written on their white-boards include, ‘use two adjectives in one sentence’, ’use ‘wonderful’ to describe day’, ‘wrong spelling’, ‘not many sentences’. This was evidence that pupils took the gallery walk seriously and used this opportunity to learn from one another. (T12) In many cases, products were not simply judged by the teachers to be better than what learners would have normally produced, but good enough to serve as models for other learners: In the poetry writing class, ‘most of the poems turned out to be well-edited…, with few errors left’. (T13). Another teacher reflected that he needed to provide more input that was “interesting, relevant, comprehensible and yet challenging enough to help my pupils improve on their language competencies” (T8).

Learners’ Own Evaluations of the Activities Spontaneous learner comments testified to the interest and perceived value of the activities, and the wish for more activities of a similar kind. In a class where an example of one group’s creative writing had been used, a pupil remarked that this “teaching method would allow them to learn from one another since all of them would have different story lines” (T10). Another teacher notes: ‘When pupils made the request to be given another opportunity to set their own worksheet but this time without clues to be given, it shows that pupils were motivated and would like to go one step further to challenge themselves’. (T1). In the same class, the teacher asked pupils how they felt about creating their own worksheet based on their own text. 421

‘Most said that they experienced a sense of ownership over their self-created worksheet as it was unique, “the one and only”, and exclusively theirs. Some pupils felt like teachers and found the experience fun. They were ‘excited’ to find out whether their partner would be able to answer the questions they had set’. (T1). Some teachers conducted rather more formal evaluations. One used a 7-item questionnaire on two classes (85 pupils). One hundred percent responded positively to the statements “The activities help me to remember what I have learnt” and “I enjoyed the activities,” and the remaining items, concerning, for example, interest, clarity of instructions, and liking for collaborative activities, all attracted positive ratings of 94% or more (T4). Summing up the whole experience, one teacher commented: “I must admit I got the best feedback ever” (Dhilshaadh). Pupils’ comments sometimes contained both insights and constructive suggestions: B realized… that a teacher’s work is not easy and can be painful and disappointing [when] especially after repeated teaching, the pupils are still not able to answer the questions. W noted that he was afraid he would hurt his friend’s feelings when he gave them his opinion. T noted that some of her friends made common errors such as misspelling words and using the wrong punctuation. She felt that she can learn not only from her own mistakes but from those made by her friends as well. She suggested that I give them a list of words that are usually spelt wrongly. 422

According to I, it was fun to set questions for her friends and she felt like a teacher when she marked their work. She wanted the activities to be done as group work rather than pair work. She suggested that I ask them to set more questions and to use a more difficult text. (T15) Pupils who discovered that their partners were able to answer most of the questions in their worksheets “concluded that it was because of the clues given” and asked if they could have a similar activity but “without having to give the clues” (T1). In a class where the teacher chose a piece of group writing as the basis for a cloze activity, pupils suggested further uses (Anusuya). Some pupils had difficulty working with their partners and recommended that partners should not be fixed or that they be allowed to work in groups. A course participant who was also a head of department asked all the teachers teaching the same level to try out the material. They too made helpful suggestions (T2).

Teacher Learning Teachers were favorably impressed not just by what learners produced, but also by their attitude to the tasks and each other. One teacher noted that group discussions were not dominated by stronger pupils and that pupils were polite to each other (Asmaroyanie). Of a class where pupils were reading and commenting on each other’s work the teacher confesses: ‘As I walked around, I was initially worried that some of my students would take the chance to laugh at their friends’ imperfect work. In the event, she was really heartened to see

423

that most of the students were very focused in wanting to read their friends’ productions, and some even had good ideas to contribute’. (T13). The value of the process itself was also recognized: Prior to the experiment, my focus was very much on the quality and usefulness of questions that the pupils could produce for their own use. However, one really interesting discovery I made… was that the process of generating learning materials was itself a really valuable learning experience for the pupils. They definitely have benefitted more from writing the questions and the discussion session with their peers than just answering 10 questions in any comprehension worksheet. (Joyce) Motivational benefits were mentioned frequently. One P2 teacher noted that the activity had given her “an insightful understanding of pupils’ attitude towards learning. It made me realize that just… using their simple piece of work would have a… positive impact” (T16). Although learners were the focus of the experiments, teachers’ conclusions rightly highlighted the nature and importance of their own role. The importance of careful learner preparation was stressed, but also the need to monitor during tasks, and to carry out some editing of products. Some teachers also acknowledged that adjustments to procedures were desirable. These related to, for example, the time required; the need for more explicit guidelines for pupils; and the need to allow more freedom for more proficient students to challenge themselves. In other cases, they had clearly reflected on the suggestions made by their pupils. 424

One teacher concluded: ‘teachers should not underestimate what the students could do. Before this it never crossed my mind that students’ work could be… a good and effective teaching resource, so now I do and am so happy’. (T10). The same teacher commented on the “social impact” on students whose work is used, feeling that this gives “meaning to their learning,” increases morale, and encourages them to produce further work of the same quality. Another wrote: “I am the traditional kind of teacher who just sticks to what has been done for umpteen years… being the authoritarian type of teacher, I like things done fast and efficiently and I thought this is not possible if one passes the rein to the pupils.” The experience of experimenting with learner-generated materials clearly had an impact on her: “this class has proven… that if given a chance, they can rise to the occasion.… I do not need to be the center of attention 100% of the time!” (T15).

Conclusions The literature on learner-generated materials makes a number of strong claims. It asserts that learners are capable of creating materials that can be used for the benefit of other learners and, moreover, that this activity has additional benefits—that, for instance, learner motivation is stimulated, commitment increased, and empathy encouraged through group collaboration (Assinder, 1991; Clarke, 1989; Gill, 2008). These effects, and others, were all borne out by the studies reported here. In the absence of any previous research relating to primary-age ESL/EFL learners, the finding that primary-age learners were able to produce (re)usable materials is clearly

425

encouraging: “The students were able to create a meaningful, durable learning resource” (T17); “With the resources they had created, I had a pool of questions that were age appropriate and meaningful” (Doreen). Another teacher admitted to being “flabbergasted” by what his pupils were able to do (Anuar). One teacher concluded: I realized that many teachers have yet to know about how they could utilize student-generated materials so that they could optimize their own and students’ contributions to the learning process. It is not at all difficult to tap on student-generated materials as stimuli for language learning even at lower primary levels.… I believe that once… teachers have begin [sic] to use student-generated materials successfully, they would want to be creative in trying out more. (T18) For some teachers, the level of learner motivation was also a significant revelation. One teacher was “amazed” to see how engaged her learners were with the task (T3), and the potential for learning through the process was also recognized: “the process of generating the materials also gives pupils great opportunities for better learning” (Joyce). Learners’ positive reactions (e.g., pride, sense of ownership) were generally seen an indicator that this was an approach that was worth pursuing. Moreover, teachers found that monitoring learners as they worked and editing their products gave them additional insights into the difficulties of individual pupils. There were also other forms of evidence that teachers were persuaded of the value of their experiments. Two teachers reported that they had described what they had been doing to 426

other teachers in their schools, who had shown great interest; and that they planned to put the materials produced by their pupils into a teacher resource bank. Several teachers have chosen in the final phase of their MEd course to write projects on more extended studies of the effects of learner-generated materials on motivation and specific aspects of learner proficiency. A similar approach to that described previously will be followed with teachers following MEd and BEd programs in the academic year 2011–2012. In this case, however, participants will no doubt be emboldened by knowing that their predecessors’ attempts to experiment with learner-generated materials in the Singaporean context were an overwhelming success on an affective level and that learners proved capable of producing materials that were locally relevant, age-appropriate, and level-appropriate. With careful teacher scaffolding, that success should be reproducible in other contexts.

Acknowledgments My thanks to the following teachers who gave me permission to quote from their work: Afidah Bte Ali, Angela Low, Anuar Adam, Anusuya Ramasamy, Asmaroyanie Shaffie, Dhilshaadh Balajee, Doreen Chan, Fauziah Ismaun, Gwen Ngan, Joyce LimWang Muay, Juliana Binte Jamil, Maslita Suhadi, Nazreen Bte Zainuddin, Noreen Ali, Noraidah Bte Azman, Nur Farhana Abdul Kader, Nur Fatimah Frauder, Patrick Goh, Rayhan M. Rashad, Regina Ng Yang Boey, Rohani Abdul Kader, Rosnah Bte Atan, Sharidah Bte J.A. Jamaluddin, Siti Haszilah, Soh Chin Ping Eileen, Tan

427

Lee Huang, Tan Shu Jin, Tan Xiuling, Woo Sye Lai, Zheng Yiying—and to the other teachers on the BEd and MEd programs whose studies contributed to the general conclusions drawn in this chapter.

References Allwright, R. (1979). Abdication and responsibility in language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 105–121. Assinder, W. (1991). Peer teaching, peer learning: One model. ELT Journal, 45(3), 218–229. Bicknell, J. (1999). Promoting writing and computer literacy skills through student-authored web pages. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 20–26. Campbell, C., & Kryszewska, H. (1992). Learner-based teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clarke, D. (1989). Materials adaptation: Why leave it all to the teacher? ELT Journal, 43(2), 133–141. Coombe, C., & Kinney, J. (1999). Learner-centered listening assessment. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 21–24. Deller, S. (1990). Lessons from the learner. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Forman, D., & Ellis, D. (1991). Students as a materials producing resource. Practical English Teaching, 11(3), 49.

428

Gill, A. (2008). Student-generated materials: Making content, community and culture more meaningful. Paper presented at the ORTESOL [TESOL, Oregon] Conference. Jacobs, G. Students as writers of ER http://www.GeorgeJacobs.net/extensive.htm

materials.

Lee, M.J.W., McLoughlin, C., & Chan, A. (2008). Talk the talk: Learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 501–521. Littlejohn, A. (1983). Increasing learner involvement in course management. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 595–608. McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mishan, F. (2004). Authenticating corpora for language learning: A problem and its resolution. ELT Journal, 58(3), 219–227. Morrison, T., Bryan, G., & Chilcoat, G. (2002). Using student-generated comic books in the classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(8), 758–767. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: a comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115–136). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

429

Riggenbach, H. (1988). Tapping a vital resource: Student-generated materials. In B. Das (Ed.), Materials for language learning and teaching (Vol. 22, Anthology Series; pp. 117–128). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: “I am not the teacher.” ELT Journal, 52(1), 19–28. Simpson, A. (2006). Let’s collocate: Student generated worksheets as a motivational tool. Humanising Language Teaching, 8(6). http://www.hltmag.co.uk/nov06/idea01.htm STELLAR. Welcome to Stellar. Ministry of Education. Singapore. http://www.stellarliteracy.sg Swales, S. (1992). Let students make their own worksheets. Practical English Teaching, 12(4), 58–59. TLLM. Ministry of Education. http://www3.moe.edu.sg/bluesky/tllm.htm

Singapore.

Tudor, I. (1993). Teacher roles in the learner-centred classroom. ELT Journal, 47(1), 22–31. Wessels, C. (1991). From improvisation to publication on an English through Drama course. ELT Journal, 45(3), 230–236. Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987–995.

430

Whitaker, S. (1983). Comprehension questions: About face? ELT Journal, 37(4), 329–334. Willis, J. (2011). Concordances in the classroom without a computer: Assembling and exploiting concordances of common words. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 51–77). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wiseman, A. (1990). Sending Mr. Brown to Utopia: Ideas for learner-generated materials. Guidelines, 12(2), 48–54. Wright, T. (1987). Roles of teachers and learners. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

431

Part V Teaching and Learning in New Times

432

13 EFL Teachers’ Conceptual Development and the Transformation of Teaching through Narratives in the E-Portfolio Tatsuhiro Yoshida and Katsunori Kambara

Introduction For the last 20 years, narrative inquiry has become a powerful epistemological framework as well as a methodological orientation, and it has been accepted as a valid method in various fields of research, including education research (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Connelly & Clandinin, 2006). Narrative inquiry has also been acknowledged as a valid research framework in second language teacher education (Barkhuizen, 2011; Johnson, 2009a; Johnson & Golombek, 2002, 2011)1. Johnson and Golombek (2002) claimed that it is “systematic exploration that is conducted by teachers and for teachers through their own stories and language” (p. 6). Although teachers’ experiences of classroom events and their interpretations are usually structured chronologically, the systematic exploration 433

of their narrative enables teachers to reconstruct them and “reconcile what is known with that which is hidden, selectively infuse those events with interpretation, and actively seek to bring meaning to their experience” (Johnson, 2009a, p. 97). Johnson and Golombek (2002) described the characteristics of narrative inquiry as follows: … narrative inquiry enables teachers to organize, articulate, and communicate what they know and believe about teaching and who they have become as teachers. Their stories reveal the knowledge, ideas, perspectives, understandings, and experiences that guide their work. Their stories describe the complexities of their practice, trace professional development over time, and reveal the ways in which they make sense of and reconfigure their work. Their stories reflect the struggles, tensions, triumphs, and rewards of their lives as teachers. We believe that, ultimately, narrative inquiry enables teachers not only to make sense of their professional worlds, but also to make significant and worthwhile change within themselves and in their teaching practices. (p. 7) Although acknowledging its powerful nature in teacher education, the criteria for good narrative inquiry are still open to discussion (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006). In addition, it is challenging for language teachers to articulate and describe their own experiences and objectify them for further analysis. This is partly due to the fact that teaching is so complicated and dynamic (or even messy) that capturing the dynamic interplay of classroom phenomena is not an easy task for the language teachers. Thus, the present study demonstrates how Japanese EFL teachers who joined a teacher inquiry group develop their pedagogical concepts through narrative inquiry. In particular, 434

we focus on a male teacher and analyze his narratives which were told (or written) in two different places; in graduate school and in the classroom. The analysis of narratives shows that the inquiry in two different places “lead[s] to transformed conceptualizations of [himself] as a teacher and transformed modes of engagement in the activities of teaching” (Johnson & Golombek, 2011, p. 490). Another unique feature of the present study is that the teachers wrote their stories by using web applications. These applications functioned as a mediating tool and allowed teachers to reflect upon and share their stories with their colleagues electronically.

Our Previous Study To investigate how EFL teachers articulate their own experiences and transform their understanding of everyday practice, Yoshida (2011) analyzed narratives written by Japanese EFL teachers who were enrolled in graduate school. The participants took a course titled ELT Curriculum Design and were asked to write their experiences and knowledge of language teaching in the form of narrative as course assignments. The course, which lasted from April to August 2008, aimed to enable the students to understand the ways in which the curriculum components interact in very complex and dynamic ways, following Graves (2000), who incorporated a systems approach into curriculum design. Unlike a specialist curriculum, in which curriculum specialists are responsible for most of the decision-making processes except ‘implementation’ (i.e., teaching), Graves proposes a ‘curriculum enactment’ view, in which “enactment—the teaching and learning processes that happen in the classroom—is at the heart of education” (Graves, 2008, 435

p. 152). In an enactment perspective, the contexts where curriculum takes place need to be carefully considered, including not only the classroom but cultural, social, educational, and political milieu, i.e., ‘socioeducational contexts’ (Graves, 2008). The enactment view allows teachers to reexamine their emotional as well as cognitive experiences, including the joy, struggle, frustration, and fear in teaching. Teachers thus play a powerful role as catalysts for change in the school and classroom. In Graves’ model (2000), therefore, ‘articulating beliefs’ and ‘defining one’s own context’ are the two foundational components of course design. These two components are however often not considered ‘foundational’ in formal teacher education programs. This is partly due to the fact that “knowledge of formal properties of language and theories of SLA continue to be positioned as fundamental knowledge for the preparation of L2 teachers” (Johnson, 2009b, p. 21). In other words, the field is still dominated by the specialist view, in which teachers’ beliefs about language teaching and understanding of contexts tend to be considered as subjective and unscientific (see also Freeman & Johnson, 1998). The course ELT Curriculum Design aimed to overcome this problem by making teacher-learners more aware of the significant role they play in curriculum design. To achieve this objective, teacher-learners were provided with a series of course assignments that required them to articulate their own understandings of language teaching and curriculum design in the first-person narrative in English2. The narratives were uploaded to their electronic portfolios (e-portfolios, hereafter) created by a learning management system, Moodle. Each assignment, once posted in the e-portfolio, was read by the course instructor (one of the authors), who left comments, 436

asked questions, and often invited the teacher-learners to further discuss the issues that emerged from the posted assignments. As shown in the following sections, the dialogic process which took place on the website between the teacher-learners and the instructor led to a critical examination and reorientation of their everyday concepts of curriculum design. The previous study, however, failed to provide evidence of how their conceptual development in the course would actually transform their teaching after they left the program. In other words, our previous study has not fully explored how the reorientation of pedagogical concepts impacts the actual activities in the classroom. This is one of the challenging issues that a formal teacher education program always has to face. In this study, thus, we will follow an English teacher who completed an MA program and continued his narrative inquiry by joining a self-directed teacher inquiry group. By examining his narratives we will explicate how his concept of curriculum design and related concepts develops after he left the formal teacher education program. Our specific research question is thus: How would teacher-learners’ conceptual development lead to the actual transformation of teaching after they leave the program and what development would be traced in the narratives written in the self-directed teacher inquiry activity? We also believe that examining narratives written in two different contexts is of interest from a methodological point of view, because the narrative inquiry reported in Yoshida (2011) was part of the course requirement and it was likely that experiences the teacher-learners articulated in their written narratives and the ways they articulated their 437

experiences might have been influenced by their perception of the activity. In other words, the narrative inquiry, which was conducted in the previous study, might have been the other-regulated activity to some extent. In the teacher inquiry group, which teachers voluntarily joined, however, their narrative inquiry become more self-directed although assistances from the peers greatly contributed to the group. Thus, they had more freedom to choose what they would write about, and these contextual differences might have a different impact on the process of their narrative inquiry.

Methodology The places3 of teacher inquiry in the present study are two-fold. One place is a teacher education course in the graduate school described earlier as our previous study (Yoshida, 2011). The other place is a teacher inquiry group, which eight Japanese EFL (six female and two male) teachers teaching at the secondary level voluntarily joined. The group was coordinated by one of the authors (Yoshida) and aimed to provide opportunities for self-directed professional development for those who had finished graduate school but still wanted to continue teacher inquiry. The participants, whose teaching experience varied from 5–25 years, were engaged in a teacher inquiry activity, in which they would write narratives of their classroom experiences at their own pace and share them with the other participants. For this purpose, a web application suite, Google Apps for Education, was introduced. Each individual member in the group used Google Docs, a web application contained in the Google Apps suite, as a writing tool and saved their narratives on the 438

web. (Thus, Google Docs served as a working e-portfolio). The teachers wrote about the pleasures or struggles they experienced in their lessons, students’ learning, or conversations with their colleagues, all of which are directly connected to their teaching practice. The narratives, once saved, could be shared with other community members if the author granted permission access to the other members. Those who read others’ stories left their comments in return by using the ‘discussion’ function in the application. As Johnson (2009a) claims, the activities were “grounded in the fundamental principle that participation and context are essential to teacher learning; and they [supported] the notion that teachers’ informal social and professional networks, including their own classrooms, can function as powerful sites for professional learning” (p. 96). Also Shulman (2004) suggests that in the process of writing narratives, teachers are involved in a very complex cognitive process: the selection and conceptualization of their experiences. He states: The transformation of an experience into a narrative is itself an act of selection and conceptualization. In converting a first-order experience into a second-order experience through narrative, an author has chosen to frame an experience in a particular way, has placed that experience in more general terms. (p. 475) In this study, in addition to the narrative writing, the participants were further encouraged to select some stories from the archives and compile them in a weblog, created with WordPress. Thus, carefully choosing particular stories from the archive and placing them on the website, which could be a third-order experience, may require teachers to restructure their experiences in more abstract or theoretical 439

concepts, which can become evidence for their professional development. By engaging in a series of narrative activities, the teachers were able to trace the qualitative transformation of their experience in the stories. In contrast to the working e-portfolio mentioned earlier, the website functioned as a display e-portfolio, which was open to the public, if the author intended, and would become a new cultural artifact that opened up further professional development among the teachers (Johnson & Golombek, 2011). In the following sections, we will look at how one of the teachers in the teacher inquiry group developed a pedagogical concept through a narrative account of his teaching by analyzing both working and display e-portfolios. His narratives are especially worth examining because he had joined our previous study mentioned above (Yoshida, 2011). He also published more narratives in the following teacher inquiry group and thus the analysis of his stories will provide insight into the ways in which he would engage in the process of professional development during and after enrollment in the graduate course. By doing so, we would like to answer the question mentioned earlier, i.e., how would teacher-learners’ conceptual development lead to the actual transformation of teaching?

Katsunori’s Narratives Graduate Course

in

the

The teacher in question is Katsunori, who is a co-author of the present chapter. He was an English teacher at a public junior

440

high school in a suburban area in Japan. After 10 years of teaching experience at two junior high schools, he enrolled in graduate school from 2008 to 2010, where he took part in narrative activities in the course ELT Curriculum Design that the other author (Yoshida) taught (see the description earlier, and Yoshida, 2011, for details). In an assignment in which the teacher-learners were asked to articulate their beliefs about language teaching and learning and describe the contexts surrounding their classroom, Katsunori carefully described the contextual factors which he believed would affect his students and categorized them into two types of contexts, i.e., extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic contextual factors included teacher, communication, future career, academic achievement, youth culture, globalization, and cultural artifacts (e.g., entrance exams), and intrinsic factors included students’ interests or curiosity, cultural minds, identity development, and personal persistence. By contextualizing the factors embedded in the students’ learning process and environment, he became more aware that he had been struggling with the conflict between his beliefs about sound pedagogy in language teaching (mostly related to the development of intrinsic factors) and the teacher’s responsibility to equip his students with test-taking skills, which are necessary for students to master in taking high school entrance exams. He stated his struggle as a language teacher in the following way: I’m afraid my articulation is not strong enough and it may end up with just problematizing my conflicts. But anyway, I do my best. One of my beliefs about teaching is that “I want my students to have the motivation to learn English enthusiastically”, because once you get interested in learning, you start to learn by yourself. Studying for the entrance 441

exams is inevitable in this society, but I believe learning English is not only a disposable ticket to enter a high school. It should be more like an official passport to open or deepen your outer and inner world. That is why, “to overcome the context” is one of my beliefs, and “how to do it” is my conflict. (posted on June 10, 2008)4 His use of the metaphors of learning English as a ticket to a high school and a passport to the students’ inner and outer world clearly shows that he valued the meaning of learning English in a unique way; he understood that being proficient in English would provide his students access to economic and social resources in their life-long journey. In contrast, learning English only for the purpose of passing exams might be reduced to acquiring particular test-taking techniques, which would be forgotten after they enter high schools. Katsunori, although recognizing the latter function of language learning at school, did not want to limit the possibility of leaning English to that purpose; he rather believed learning English would empower them and take them to a broader social and economic world in the future. The two seemingly contradictory beliefs also imply that he conceived of the problem in a dichotomous way, i.e., learning English for sound pedagogy versus learning English for exams. He admitted that he tried to resolve the conflict but was not able to. In the final course assignment, in which all the assignments posted were to be reviewed by the teacher-learners themselves, however, Katsunori realized an alternative way of understanding the conflict and stopped thinking about teaching and learning in an either/or way. He accepted the entrance exams as a significant event in his students’ lives, 442

yet sought the possibility of reconciling the conflict and encouraging students to participate in pedagogically meaningful experiences. He began to believe that he would be able to do that by making the students feel safe by establishing a trustworthy relationship between the teacher and the students. Under the current Japanese school system, improving students’ academic scores is the biggest concern. I have so far seen many students worried about or stressed by high school entrance exams. To overcome the problem, I believe making those students relaxed is really important. Thus, one of the things teachers can do is to analyze high school entrance exams and tell their students exactly what to do for the exams; to ensure each student’s success (in entrance exams) is inevitable. By doing these, teachers receive real trust from students. I might sound like a teacher who pursues traditional grammar translation methods or mechanical drills and repetitions. Far from it. What I try to articulate is that we need to understand the whole contexts where we are situated. Only after that we are able to find the ways to overcome problems. Only when students feel safe about their exams (I mean, students feel confident), they begin to pursue deeper or more sophisticated interests of language learning. While teachers are getting students’ trust, they can repeatedly tell students about possibilities for their future world after acquiring English communication skills. (posted on August 6, 2008; cited in Yoshida, 2011, p. 149) The fact that he accepted that learning English for the purpose of taking entrance exams is inescapable for students does not necessarily mean that he had compromised his beliefs 443

regarding language teaching in favor of the dominant ideology in the society. Rather, he began to conceptualize language teaching and curriculum from a sociocultural perspective. This was partly made possible by his exposure to a concept of curriculum design that foregrounds the role of teachers as change agents and underscores the dynamic interplay of socioeducational contexts (i.e., enactment perspectives; Graves, 2000, 2008). It is not easy for teachers to identify factors which might contradict their own beliefs but cannot be dismissed, and to incorporate them into their own curriculum design; yet, although struggling with this challenge, Katsunori successfully generated terms which embrace the relationship between the teacher and students, namely trust and commitment. In the later online discussion with the course instructor, he elaborated the idea of trust in the following way: I think the word “trust” is very important. Trust generates “commitment.” When teacher and student give commitment to teaching/learning, they have more chance to achieve higher goals. When they are interested and committed in what they are doing (about teaching/learning English), they will begin to learn by themselves […] If teacher has knowledge and experiences by which he or she judges what the best (or the most appropriate) curriculum for students is, it is easier for both the teacher and the students to build up “trust” or give “commitment” to each other…. (posted on August 30, 2008; cited in Yoshida, 2011, p. 150) It is often claimed that trust and commitment need to be established in order to create a safe learning environment (e.g., Community Language Learning), and no teacher doubts his or her significance in the classroom. It is also true, 444

however, that these ideas are often dismissed in language lessons under the context where a teacher-centered approach is more favorable and suitable for exam-oriented teaching. By reexamining his own beliefs about language teaching and learning and the socioeconomic contexts articulated in his narratives, however, Katsunori was able to define by himself the meanings of the two concepts as those that were essential for his own teaching and were shaped by a broader social, economic, educational, and political environment, in which the lives of teachers and students are embedded (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).

Katsunori’s Inquiry

Continued

Narrative

After completing the MA program, Katsunori returned to a public junior high school and continued to teach English. In 2010, as he was seeking an opportunity to continue his teacher inquiry research, he voluntarily joined a teacher inquiry group (see earlier section for the description). He had been actively engaged in the project and wrote and uploaded 17 narrative pieces over 8 months. Most of his narratives were shared online by the other members in the group, who left comments, posed questions, and exchanged their ideas with him. Although there is no space here to discuss how the online social network would help teachers with their professional development, the interaction among the teachers and the coordinator definitely affected the way Katsunori would see and describe his experiences in the classroom.

445

In July 2011, he reviewed all the stories saved in Google Docs and selected some, which were to be published on his weblog. In compiling the selected stories in his display e-portfolio, he elaborated some key pedagogical concepts which emerged from his narratives. In the following sections, we would like to trace how his understanding of the classroom phenomena had transformed by first looking at the key concepts listed in his display portfolio, and then the stories, which are linked to the key concepts as evidence of his conceptual development. On the top page of his e-portfolio, Katsunori chose and listed three subtitles as page titles: Beliefs, Pair Work, and Writing Activity. Among these, we would like to focus on his narratives about pair work, because the stories contained under this category led him to reinterpret the pedagogical meaning of pair work activities in the classroom. On the web page on pair work he summarized three conditions necessary for effective pair-work activities. I am still searching for good (effective) ways to incorporate communicative pair activities. Sometimes students collaboratively work in pairs and sometimes they don’t. There are some conditions for good pair activity; • – good topic (something authentic for learners) • – good planning (clear instruction and gradual approach) • – sound interdependency among the students (i.e., trust and commitment)

446

Figure 13.1 Katsunori’s e-portfolio: top page. Communicative pair activities require a lot of workload for teachers. I have encountered dilemmas as I tried to introduce cooperative learning in my L2 classroom. Those dilemmas are sometimes related to my personality, my job requirement, and our context (EFL classroom at a middle school in an urban area in Japan). (http://elt-research.com/wp/kkambara/ pair-work/) The three conditions, which were engendered as a result of his reinterpretation of the archived narratives, represent his 447

current understanding of effective pair-work activities. The condition ‘sound interdependency’ refers to the two terms ‘trust and commitment,’ which he had also regarded as valuable to his beliefs about teaching when he was in the MA program. Here, we can recognize his inquiry continues from the past inquiry, which valued the social relationship among the students and between the teacher and students in the language classroom. We would like to look at the stories that led him to articulate the three conditions of pair work.

448

Figure 13.2 Katsunori’s weblog on pair-work activities.

A Critical Event in the Pair-Work Activity Two pieces of Katsunori’s narrative, specifically those titled ‘Two mistakes’ posted on May 26, 2011, and ‘Renewed 449

conception of Pair-Work’ posted on May 27, 2011, are particularly worth examining here because they both indicate how his understanding of pair work was reoriented around a critical event that took place in his classroom. According to Webster and Mertova (2007), critical events can be negative or positive, and the use of critical events for analyzing narratives provides a valuable and insightful tool because “a critical event as told in a story reveals a change of understanding or worldview by the storyteller” (Webster & Mertova, 2007, p. 73). Webster and Mertova (2007) described the characteristics of critical events in the following way: [A critical event] has impacted on the performance of the storyteller in a professional or work-related role. It may have a traumatic component, attract some excessive interest by the public or the media, or introduce risk in the form of personal exposure: illness, litigious action or other powerful personal consequence. (p. 74) The experience of a critical event is always identified in retrospective ways; it is impossible to predict what types of critical events will occur in particular contexts. In this sense, it is important for teachers to articulate their own teaching experience and later identify what impact it has on their understanding of classroom phenomena. Webster and Mertova (2007) further stated “[the] critical event will have challenged the storyteller’s understanding or worldview. The event is likely to have changed their experience and understanding, informing future behavior and understanding” (p. 74).

450

In his narrative titled ‘Two mistakes’ (posted on May 26, 2011), Katsunori described what happened in the lesson he taught to 8th graders that day. The lesson was rescheduled from the regular morning class to an afternoon time slot because a school event took place on that day. Katsunori was afraid that the students would not maintain their attention on the lesson, especially because it was immediately after lunch and was a hot afternoon, and he decided to give a pop test to focus their mind on the lesson. At the beginning of the lesson he explained to the students that they would demonstrate their reading aloud to him, as he wanted to see how well they could read a passage in the textbook. He then asked them to form pairs and practice together until they felt confident enough. Katsunori uses different ways of pairing up students depending on the activity, and in this lesson, he instructed them to form ‘mechanical pairs,’ by which a student is mechanically paired up with another sitting next to him or her. They were not allowed to choose their partners. Although the students seemed to begin practicing reading with the peers very smoothly, a little while later he found that a girl student, Eri (pseudonym) had become very upset and begun crying with her face down on the desk. Also, some of the students left their seats and were chatting with each other in the back of the classroom. The students lost their concentration and stopped practicing their reading. He described the class as ‘in a mess,’ and the pop test was postponed. After the lesson, Katsunori asked Eri what happened to her. He described how he felt at this moment: [Eri] claimed that some boy students came close to her and accused her of not doing the pair-work with her partner. Eri was too shy to do pair work with her partner (a boy student). I

451

felt very sorry for her because I asked the students to make ‘mechanical pairs’ and that caused a bullying act in the classroom. Eri has been in trouble getting along well with her classmates. (posted on May 26, 2011) He continued and pointed out two mistakes he had made: I made two mistakes. One mistake was that I used the mechanical pairs on the wrong timing. Some students might have been very frustrated to make pairs with someone who is not willing to do a collaborative task, or simply is less skilled to complete the task. Eri’s partner was a very nice boy but he was frustrated because he simply wanted to pass the test his teacher ordered. I can’t accuse Eri’s partner. I over-estimated the students’ cheerful appearances. In the previous lesson we had a good mood in our classroom and it made me too confident to proceed with the pair-activity. Working in pair is very sensitive activity and if I judge wrong it might hurt some students. A second mistake was that I did not give enough reading practice before moving into the shadow-reading test; I think I left behind some less skilled students. If the students were not confident in reading each sentence, it would be too stressful for them to do pair-work. (posted on May 26, 2011) Although the incident described in his story was critical and upsetting for him as a language teacher, Katsunori faced the event and reflected upon the experience at that moment in a less emotional manner. In his narrative he referred to the context (i.e., when and for what purpose the activity should be implemented) as a significant factor in the pair-work activity, which he depicted as a very ‘sensitive activity.’ He also regretfully stated that he did not provide enough practice 452

time for the students and that he needed to exercise special caution due to the individual differences among the students.

Renewed Conception of Pair Work He continued to narrate his experience on the following day in the story titled, ‘Renewed conception of Pair-Work,’ which begins with the following statement: After yesterday’s lesson, I had been thinking what I was going to tell to the students at the beginning of the class. I wanted to re-confirm my beliefs about pair-work activities when I teach English. One thought came up to my mind: English is a tool we use for communication. At the beginning of the lesson, I immediately apologized to my students for my bad planning of the lesson and re-declared my beliefs about learning English. 1. English is a tool for communication. So it would be nice to do some pair-works and practice together with partners. 2. I don’t want to force anyone as your partners. It is basically students’ choice to choose partners. 3. Sentences in the textbook are not what learners wish to say in their minds. But learners can take advantage of memorizing those basic English sentence-patterns. (posted on May 27, 2011) What is striking in this narrative is that he did not blame his students for their misbehaviors in the previous lesson. The incident rather made him wonder what was wrong with the 453

lesson and pushed him to revisit his beliefs regarding teaching, especially the nature of pair-work activities in English lessons. The belief ‘English is a tool for communication’ is a frequently heard expression, or a cliché, and is often superficially understood. For him, however, it is a very powerful phrase and serves as a reference point from which a new pedagogical action was taken. His intention to disclose and share his beliefs with his students also suggests that he was trying to reestablish a trustful teacher–student relationship. Thus, he admitted to his poor lesson planning in an apologetic tone and explained to the students in what way pair-work activities were important in learning English. He could have fallen back on his authority as a teacher and blamed the students for not seriously being engaged in the activity. However, his understanding of the pair work, part of which must have been gained from the telling and retelling of his story, as well as Graves’ (2000) or other theories of language teaching he learned in the graduate course, enabled him to look at the classroom phenomenon in a more scientific way. To compensate for the failure of the reading test in the previous lesson, Katsunori gave the students a worksheet, which instructed them how to improve their reading aloud skills. It was designed especially to help less-skilled students. With the improvement he made in the lesson, most of the students began practicing and tried the pair reading test, except Eri. Although Katsunori was very concerned about her, a positive sign was observed in the conversation with her. He wrote: Eri didn’t come [to me to take the test] but her partner was happy to take the test with his new partner (another boy 454

student). It seemed Eri didn’t mind it. She came to me after the lesson and said “I will do some self-study at home. Please write some advice on pronunciation.” There was a smile on her face. (posted on May 27, 2011) The critical event, in which he experienced a mess in the classroom, a girl’s becoming emotionally upset, and his disappointment, now begins to take on a different meaning. We argue that it is not just his experiencing these events but his telling and retelling of the experiences that enabled him to reinterpret the meaning of the incident and the pair-work activity. In the same narrative, he wrote: Maybe the biggest mistake I made was that I misunderstood the nature of pair-work. It is not something that complements some of teacher’s roles. Taking care of the students with some difficulties in learning English is a teacher’s job. I just can’t rely on students. Pair-work time is not only for less-advanced students to ask some questions to more advanced students. Students want to have more symmetrical partnership. Pair-work time should be more premium; like an unexpected gift of learning. (posted on May 27, 2011) He previously thought (or learned) that the teacher’s role could be taken over by students in pair-work activities because he believed that students could learn more from each other, and especially that less-skilled students learn better from their partners than from their teacher (Littlewood, 1981). However, the critical event made him realize that just pairing up the students and letting them practice (i.e., mechanical pairing) would not work. His previous understanding of pair work is often described as ‘the myth of learner-centeredness’ (Holliday, 1994). In addition, Katsunori observed that the 455

students were willing to ‘have more symmetrical relationships’ with their partners. Although its meaning is not entirely clear, he seems to have used the term to refer to relationships in which conversational rights and duties are equally distributed between the participants (Van Lier, 1996). If this interpretation is correct, he sensed that the students did not want to be paired up based on sociometric relationships that the teacher prepared in advance (i.e., skilled and less-skilled pairs). Because of the socio-cultural nature of the pair work, the activity requires deliberate design by the teacher, and at the same time appropriate scaffolding is necessary to enhance the interaction among the students during the activity. Pair work has been studied with regard to its relevance to the communicative language teaching (Littlewood, 1981), classroom management (Wright, 2005), and dyadic interactional patterns (Storch, 2002). However, we argue that the understanding of pair work by insiders (i.e., teacher and students) and their interpretation provide powerful insight into the classroom which conventional experimental research would not reveal. His story ended with a very promising remark: “Pair-work time should be more premium; like an unexpected gift of learning.” The ‘learning’ here refers not only to the students’ learning but also to his own teacher learning. However, Katsunori did not learn a new concept but he was able to reorient his previous understanding of pair work as a teaching technique towards pair work as a pedagogical concept, which are closely connected to his beliefs, trust and commitment. The renewed conception was summarized as ‘conditions for good pair work’ in his display portfolio and this developmental change was made possible by his telling, retelling, and 456

reliving the stories in the teacher inquiry group and in his classroom (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006).

Conclusion Due to space limitation, we were not able to document other cases of teacher inquiry in the teacher inquiry group. By carefully examining narrative inquiry by a single EFL teacher, however, we attempted to answer the question posed earlier in this chapter, i.e., “How would teacher-learners’ conceptual development lead to the actual transformation of teaching after they leave the program and what development would be traced in the narratives written in the self-directed teacher inquiry activity?” We argue that Katsunori’s stories and his interpretations of them powerfully demonstrate that teachers are able to make sense of theoretical concepts as mediational tools and to take further action by telling and retelling classroom phenomena in more narrative ways (Clandinin, Pushor, & Murray-Orr, 2007; Johnson & Golombek, 2011). Katsunori narrated the critical event, which took place as a result of the wrong choice of activity in his lesson. Because it was a ‘critical’ event, he struggled to reflect upon it and considered how the situation could have been improved. By telling and retelling the stories, however, he was able to relive “in terms of the new, retold, narrative” (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006) and this enabled him to reorient his previous understanding towards the pedagogical concept of pair work. It is possible that this renewed understanding of pair work would function as a mediational tool and facilitate further conceptual development of pedagogy (Johnson & Golombek, 2011).

457

We would like to conclude this chapter by suggesting two implications obtained from our research. First, as we are witnessing a growing awareness that practitioner knowledge plays a crucial role in language teaching research such as exploratory practice (Allwright, 2003; Allwright & Hanks, 2009), reflective practice (Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Wallace, 1991), and action research (Burns, 1999, 2010), narrative inquiry also contributes to the development of teacher research, which is grounded in teachers’ local teaching contexts. This does not mean, however, that their experiences in the local context are appreciated only within that particular community. A story of a particular practitioner’s experience and their interpretations of it rather provide other practitioners teaching in very different contexts with an opportunity, where they “connect this [particular] narrative to their remembered (personal) experiences or to vicariously experienced cases written or recounted by others.… They also connect this narrative to categories of experience, to theoretical classifications through which they organize and make sense of their world” (Shulman, 2004, p. 474). Thus, when locally told stories are shared in more global communities of practitioners through media such as the present volume, narrative inquiry will empower teachers’ voices and become a powerful and legitimate way of language teaching research. In the context of second language teacher education (SLTE), Johnson and Golombek (2011) emphasize the role of narrative as a knowledge-building tool. They stated: Although highly relevant to the individual teachers who generate it, such knowledge can and should be made accessible outside the local context. In other words, the products of teachers’ narrative activities function as a tool for 458

knowledge-building within SLTE when they are made public, open to review by others, and accessible to others in the profession through engagement with wider professional discourses and practices. (p. 502) Another issue relevant to the discussion is how to enhance the trustworthiness, credibility, and verisimilitude of teachers’ narratives. This is where researchers and teacher educators play an important role. For example, they should help teachers move from field texts to research texts (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), which roughly corresponds to “converting a first-order experience into a second-order experience through narrative” in Shulman (2004, p. 475). To do so, researchers should collaboratively engage in the meaning-making process with teachers and in this way we believe that the pursuit of narrative inquiry will transform the professional landscape of language teaching research and teachers’ professional development (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Johnson & Golombek, 2011).

Acknowledgment A part of this chapter was supported by the MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.2152063 (2009–2011).

Notes 1. Barkhuizen was the guest editor of the special-topic issue on narrative research in TESOL in TESOL Quarterly, 45, and Barkhuizen (2011) is the opening article of the issue.

459

2. Several debatable issues need to be addressed concerning the method of the narrative data collection. First, the language the participants used in writing their narratives was mostly English. Although they were teachers of English, it is arguable whether the use of a foreign language rather than their native language serves as a better tool for articulating their own stories. However, as some of the participants personally stated, because they wrote in English, they chose words and phrases in their writing very deliberately. This careful editing process led them to more detailed analysis of the classroom phenomena. Another issue is that the narrative was written as a course assignment, which had to be completed as a course requirement. The obligatory nature of the writing and the power relationship between the assessor and assessed definitely affected the ways in which the teacher-learners wrote their narratives. As Clandinin and Connelly (2000) pointed out, however, “narrative inquiry is a way of understanding experience [which] is a collaboration between researcher and participants over time” (p. 20), and we believe that appropriate mediation provided by teacher educators would enhance their awareness of everyday classroom experiences. 3. ‘Place’ is one of the commonplaces, or features, of narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Connelly & Clandinin, 2006). The others are ‘temporality’ and ‘sociality.’ We would like to use the word ‘place’ to refer to the contexts where narrative inquiry actually took place in our present study. 4. Key expressions, which are relevant to the discussion in the present chapter, are italicized by the authors.

460

References Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language Teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141. Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 1–25. Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge. Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D.J., Pushor, D., & Murray-Orr, A. (2007). Navigating sites for narrative inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 21–35. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.

461

Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J.L. Green, G. Camilli, & P.B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp.477–484). London: Routledge. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417 Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41, 147–181. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K.E. (2009a). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. Johnson, K.E. (2009b). Trends in second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 20–29). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K.E., & Golombek, P. (2002). Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K.E., & Golombek, P. (2011). The transformative power of narrative in second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 486–509.

462

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Richard, J.C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective taeching in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shulman, L. S., (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Storch, N. (2002). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305–322. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman. Wallace, M. J., (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Webster, L., & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method: An introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. London: Routledge.

463

Wright, T. (2005). Classroom management in language education. New York: Pal-grave Macmillan. Yoshida, T. (2011). Moodle as a mediational space: Japanese EFL teachers’ emerging conceptions of curriculum. In K.E. Johnson & P. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective for professional development (pp.136–152). New York: Routledge.

464

14 Speaking Like a ‘Glocal’ Using Computer-Mediated Communication in Language Teacher Education to Promote Network Learning Melinda Dooly Whenever you learn something new, the whole world becomes that much richer. —Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth (1961) It may seem hackneyed to state that the world is becoming increasingly interconnected at both global and local levels. Banal as it may seem, however, inevitably local and global mediation between individuals and institutions will shape future outcomes of society as a whole. As Jewitt (2008) points out, it is becoming more common to perceive of society as global and fluid (Bauman, 1998), and networked (Castells, 2001). Nonetheless, a word of caution is necessary: the local and the global should not be understood as dichotomous when they are in fact “similarly implicit in each other. (…) What we think of as global forces and structures are always instantiated in local contexts and interactions” (Burgess, 2006, p. 2). It is this production and re-production of the local and the global that creates a growing need for research into the mediating roles of teacher, students, peers, educational settings, languages, and technology in an increasingly ‘wired’ world. 465

The locally-situated mediating role of the teacher in the global context has been considered from several different perspectives. Nancy Hornberger’s seminal research (1998) in the late-’80s and early-’90s helped shift the focus of sociolinguistic research towards classroom ethnography and laid the groundwork for a “multi-layered analysis” (Martin-Jones, 2011, p. 4) that documented the local ways in which classroom participants (teacher and students) mediated and remediated national educational policies. Further research, drawing from critical pedagogy, aimed to map the articulations between the ‘micro’ and the ‘macro’ (Heller & Martin-Jones, 2001; Pennycook, 2000) and helped bring out the relationship between the local and the global in everyday teaching and learning events. Clearly, in an increasingly interconnected society, teachers must consider carefully the global context and global implications of their local efforts in order to prepare their students for the future and it is becoming increasingly more common to hear of the need to educate future ‘global citizens.’ However, what this means has been interpreted widely in different education fields. In language education, there is considerable discussion amongst educators of the role of intercultural communication of the global citizen; linguists have debated the teacher’s role in the question of ‘world languages’ versus ‘lesser used languages’; educators and researchers have discussed the role of globalization in new literacy practices; environmentalists argue that teachers must contribute to global sustainability, and the list can go on. The fact remains that the role of educators in today’s world is crucial for tomorrow’s citizens (Lipman, 2000).

466

This implies that teachers should provide students with the opportunity to experience the global value of interdependence, and learn to navigate the interconnections and potential tensions between global and local cultures, while promoting critical thinking of all sets of values and cultures (local and global). At many levels, the role of education in today’s global society has become a key debate; however, this chapter takes a narrower focus and looks specifically at language teacher education and Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). Language teachers stand at an important juncture between the global (intercultural and linguistic experiences for themselves and their students) and the local (socializing ‘life experiences’ in the school and community) and they require specific competences for navigating these different domains. Additionally, an understanding of the ‘distributive’ characteristic of knowledge is needed. In today’s world, where e-learning and e-socialization and a need for what one could call ‘e-functioning’ is so prevalent, the notion of knowledge as a part of an interconnected network seems quite readily accepted. Nonetheless, knowing how to create optimal conditions for the learning of ‘distributive knowledge’ in traditional classrooms can be a real challenge, perhaps even more so for novice teachers and student-teachers. Studies indicate that although technology is becoming more and more an integral part of school life, more often than not it is used in the language classroom as a means of information retrieval, as a means of cloze-type language practice, or as a means of quite teacher-controlled publication processes (BECTA, 2008). In contrast, internet-based platforms are used less frequently for communication-based activities (Dooly, 2009).

467

The use of technology for social interaction has been found to promote the prime features of distributive knowledge: critical thinking skills (Perkins & Murphy, 2006), higher level thinking skills (Cradler, McNabb, Freeman, & Burchett, 2002), problem-solving (Bauerle & Gallagher, 2003), and shared knowledge-construction (Kafai & Ching, 2001; Rueschoff & Ritter, 2001). Teachers’ perceptions of how knowledge is constructed, then, can influence the way in which technology is used in education. Technology not only can provide visual learning in the classroom, it also opens the door to improve higher level thinking skills. However, (…) technology will fail to meet its educational promise if we neglect to equip teachers with the skills they need to understand and use it and transmit this knowledge and skills to the urban learner. (Song, Owens, & Kidd, 2009, pp. 212–215) Therefore, it is not enough to integrate technology into the classroom (no matter how efficiently it is used) without a paradigmatic shift concerning notions of knowledge and learning. With these two premises in mind, this chapter will first discuss the challenges associated with bringing technologically-enhanced distributive learning into the classroom, including a new framework of what knowledge within a network learning process implies. Following this, data from teacher education practices imparted through Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) are presented (participants, activities, and tools) and analyzed in order to trace specific moments of very complex, distributive learning, as the student-teachers mediate their interaction between the local and global. In the first case, a sequential analysis of one participant is given, showing her gradual progression in 468

becoming a ‘knowing’ member of a community—in this case a teacher with the knowledge and ability to integrate technology into her teaching in order to ‘open up’ her students’ connections and to help them participate in “network learning” (Downes, 2010). The second case takes a micro-perspective of only one event, involving more than one participant, in order to identify specific features of network learning.

Challenges on the Horizon Research in the past decade has helped identify some of the challenges of transferring out-of school social activities involving technology and computer-mediated communication into teaching practices. Research into the resistance of acceptance of social media tools into the classroom indicates that important factors are: the uniform and compulsory application of the use of technologies, lack of authentic purpose for the activities, and the adult-control and supervision of supposedly socially-constituted use of technology (Knobel & Lankshear, 2006). These obstacles underscore the disparity between traditional teaching and the type of learning that is usually theoretically associated with the pedagogical paradigms of technologically-enhanced socioconstructivism and situated learning within a dynamic social process (Lamy & Hampel, 2007; Meskill & Anthony, 2010). In such approaches, learning is understood as part of socially-and culturally-situated interactions in which new meanings and knowledge are ‘constructed,’ all through the collaboration of sharing knowledge, usually through network-based activities.

469

Once more, the notion of knowledge in an interconnected world comes to the fore. The internet itself serves as an example of the non-linear increment of information and the ill-fitting manner of linearly designed teaching approaches within a knowledge society based on information distribution. The cognitive demands of non-linear learning include metacognitive thinking and self-regulation within a dynamic knowledge environment. Moreover, today’s information-based knowledge society requires a capacity of ‘thinking together’ in what has been called “participatory power” (Sternberg, 2010, p. xv). The image of the learner as the ‘individual scientist’ discovering the world is no longer viable and teachers must adapt their pedagogical assumptions accordingly. A brilliant example of this distributive, collaborative knowledge occurred in September 2011 when a group of online gamers solved a DNA puzzle—in 10 days–that could hold the key to AIDS research. This same puzzle had stumped researchers and scientists for years. These last few decades of technological, social, political, economic, and cultural changes (at both the global and the local scale) demand that teachers rethink the content of what they are teaching, beginning at the core of what comprises distributive knowledge within a framework of continuous interconnectivity. Within this paradigm, knowledge is not located in any given place; knowledge is constituted through networks of connections formed from multiple experiences of sharing, creating, participating, and interacting with a knowing community—often times an online community of ever-expansive knowledge stemming from very different local, individual experiences. Thus, learning is not a separate, individual activity, but rather, embedded in meaningful 470

activities with others—both locally (e.g., their classmates) and globally (e.g., online peers). It also provides more learning opportunities through a higher ratio of contrastive opinions and experiences through global connections. Although this concept of distributive knowledge may seem intuitively obvious for most users of the internet, a corollary idea of what counts as knowledge may run counter-intuitive to more traditional ideas of teaching. “What constitutes knowledge, then, can be understood as part of a ‘collective intelligence’ or network of contextualized meaning(s); knowledge is not a static, ‘stand-alone’ entity and the way in which one ‘knows’ is measured by ‘connectedness between entities’” (Downes, 2010, p. 9). This network of ‘knowing’ community members exemplifies the idea of distributive knowledge that is so fundamental to today’s society and forms a significant part of the local–global relationship in the learning process. It is this type of ‘collective intelligence,’ afforded by Computer-Mediated Communication between two geographically and culturally distanced groups, which is examined herein. Arguably, the type of interaction that took place online between the two groups could have taken place in ‘traditional’ face-to-face activity, along the lines of ‘discuss your teaching sequences in groups.’ However, the data demonstrate that the process of learning by the participants came through multiple experiences of sharing knowledge that they would not have had access to in more traditional circumstances.

471

Mediating Between the Local and the Global: Case Studies According to McLaren (2003), today’s classrooms must be organized in line with sound theory, while at the same time, teaching theories should “provoke teachers to question the value assumptions that underlie their technocratic cultural terrain and throw open to scrutiny the classroom practices” (p. 239). This identifies one of the biggest challenges for today’s teachers: opening up the classroom to views that may differ from their own. Educators in a ‘global world’ will need to have cross national and cross cultural competencies on a grander scale than their predecessors. They will also need an unprecedented willingness to teach and be taught by the rest of the world. Part of this will involve rethinking the language and practice of nationalism over and against that of universal human rights and global solidarity, even in the classroom. (Malisa, Koetting, & Radermacher, 2007, p. 17) Therefore, teacher education must go beyond merely teaching theory; teacher education should promote an involved, critical stance towards the academic literature and teaching theory and get student-teachers to move from ‘knowledge telling’ to ‘knowledge transforming.’ One way in which teacher education can promote knowledge transformation that allows future teachers to ‘connect the dots’ between theory and practice is to engage them in distributed learning themselves in a way that promotes reflective thinking. Indeed, the concept of teachers as “reflective practitioners” has been a 472

staple of teacher education for some time now (Farrell, 2005, 2007, 2008; International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2008; Schön, 1983). The concepts reflection and reflective practice are entrenched in teacher education literature (Ottesen, 2007) with good reason. Reflection is a vehicle for critical analysis and problem solving and is at the heart of purposeful learning. Reflective observation focuses on the knowledge being learned (i.e., curriculum) as well as the experiential practice (i.e., pedagogy); both are important aspects of the learning process (Kolb, 1984). Through metacognitive examination of their own experiences, preservice teachers are encouraged to take a closer look at what they are learning and to explore their own growth in greater depth. Experiencing the power of reflection in their own learning, they are more likely to encourage similar reflection on the part of their students. (Lambert & Cuper, 2008, p. 267) This was the premise of the case study presented here, however, in this experience the classroom boundaries were opened up to a much wider arena. The geographically-distanced student-teachers used Computer-Mediated Communication to collaborate on several teaching activities and were encouraged to engage in reflective practice through online discussion with their colleagues about their own beliefs and practices. Thus, through ‘technological immersion,’ student-teachers experienced the global value of interdependence between colleagues across the globe and had first-hand practice of network learning which they could then apply with their own students in interconnected communicative activities.

473

In an attempt to move away from a teacher-fronted approach, in ratio, the online student-to-student interaction comprised two-thirds more ‘on-task’ time than in class teacher–student interaction. This allowed for more opportunities for implementation of network learning through diversity of opinions; connection of specialized nodes or information sources; and more possible exposure to beliefs and practices that differed from their own. The beneficial impact of intercultural or cross-cultural comparative learning experiences has been well-documented elsewhere (c.f. Gobel & Helmke, 2010; Kim, 2001; Schachinger & Taylor, 2000) and for sake of brevity will not be discussed in detail here.

Context and Participants The participants were student-teachers located in Spain and the U.S. All of the participants were studying to become language teachers; however, the level of experience with the use of technology was different: The Spanish student-teachers had little or no experience with technology as an educational tool whereas the U.S. group was not only more experienced in technology, the course they were taking specifically involved learning and using technology for teaching language. The two groups were studying similar degrees but at different levels. The Spanish student-teachers were taking part in their school placement (internship) tutorials in their final year of initial teacher training, specializing in English as a Foreign Language; the U.S. students were involved in two specialized courses (Reading and Writing for English as a Second Language and Computer-Mediated Communication [CMC] for ESL Teaching), both at an MA level for a Teaching of English as a Second Language degree. The same activities

474

were carried out twice over a period of 2 years (with different groups). The university in Spain is called UAB, the university in the U.S. is called UIUC. The students’ names have been changed to protect their identity.

Activities and Tools In the first semester, student-teachers worked in small online groups to provide feedback and constructive criticism to each group members’ individual teaching sequence (TS). The collaborative groups of 2–3 students included members from both UIUC and UAB. The online interaction began first with short personal introductions through the online presentation platform ‘Voicethread.’ The group members commented on the Voicethreads and then the students were provided more spaces for interaction (Moodle1 forum, chat rooms). These spaces were used for initial brainstorming of ideas for their teaching sequences and then smaller online groups were created based on common interests shown in these interactions. In the meantime, in the face-to-face sessions of each institution a very rough draft of the TS was presented, with observations and recommendations for the first ideas coming from both face-to-face (F2F) and online partners. The first drafts of their teaching sequences were then uploaded into a Zoho2 wiki so that the group members could highlight and emphasize different aspects directly into the TS draft online. After the first TS drafts had been commented on by all group members in the individual wikis, the student-teachers were then asked to arrange online meetings to discuss the comments made on each TS draft. The modality— text or

475

audio chat—and timetable were left up to each group to decide because one of the implicit goals was to get the students to practice with as many technological tools as possible. Student-teachers were asked to keep records of their meetings (text transcripts or audio files), which eventually became a component of their final teacher portfolio, also done in a wiki. Following these meetings, the student-teachers were expected to revise their draft a second time, and then meet again with their small online working groups before presenting a third (but not final) version of their draft to the face-to-face partners in each institution. These teaching sequences were then finalized, incorporating any last input from university tutors, school tutors, classmates, or online peers and implemented during the student-teachers’ placement teaching. After the teaching internship, reflections on the design and implementation were included in the students’ online wiki. For the second semester, the student-teachers worked together to design and develop podcasts and complementary teaching activities. Working in groups, the student-teachers were provided with virtual ‘spaces’ and tools for meetings, this time in a Virtual World (Second Life, hereafter SL). In order to introduce all of the students to the Virtual World (VW), an initial online meeting was held and included a ‘round robin’ of introductions via avatars, then the students were given instructions for a ‘scavenger hunt’ in order to become more familiar with the ‘lay-out’ of the SL environment, and also to get to know their online working partners (unknown to the student-teachers, the members of these groups had already been assigned and they ‘ended up’ as groups in the scavenger hunt). The scavenger hunt ‘ended’ at the large group’s 476

‘gathering place’ in the VW, which had been designed for them to be able to display their first drafts of the podcast. Various ‘smaller’ meeting places had also been set up for the groups (who had just finished getting to know each other in the scavenger hunt) so they could begin their initial brainstorming of their podcast. The groups worked together on both the podcast and the teaching activities (pre, during, and post), although there were different leaders for the varying tasks, depending on individual expertise (technological, pedagogical, etc.). In other words, the student-teachers were organized in what Barab and Duffy (2000) have called ‘activity groups’ that consisted of participants coming together temporarily around a particular task, (or in this case, various tasks in a Virtual World) that led up to a podcast-based teaching sequence. A final, synchronous SL meeting served as both closure (SL party) and an opportunity for peers to give feedback on the finished podcasts.

Case 1: Integration into a Network of ‘Knowing’: Sequential Analysis As was mentioned earlier, the language teacher must be a mediator between “global discourse competences” and local “cultural and linguistic identities” (Luk, 2005, p. 264) in order to help students give voice to their own identities. During the exchanges that took place between the two groups, the student-teachers learned to mediate the ‘self’ through technology and then displayed the skills necessary to apply

477

similar situations and the use of technology with their own students afterwards. Consider the development of Claudia in these sequences (ordered chronologically). In the first face-to-face (F2F) tutorial where the teacher and students negotiated the format and output for the semester, the activities to be carried out during the online exchange, and the tools to be used, Claudia was reluctant to experiment with any technological tools or platforms that she was not familiar with. (Up to this point, all of the courses had made use of Moodle only). By the second F2F tutorial (Figure 14.2), held a week later, Claudia now argued in favor of the exchange with her classmates, placing emphasis on the potential learning that the exchange could provide for both groups of students, although at this point Claudia insists that she is going to learn more by observing in the school than by ‘talking.’ Despite her initial insistence that she was going to learn more “in the school” than in the online exchange, by the end of the first term, after holding several intensive one-to-one, or two-to-one online feedback sessions about their teaching sequences with her peers online, Claudia highlighted the importance the interaction had had for her in order to learn to apply self-reflection and to improve her TS, especially emphasizing the feedback that she received from her geographically-distanced partners who had had different personal and professional experiences from her face-to-face peers.

478

Figure 14.1 Extract 1. (Transcript key in annex)

Figure 14.2 Extract 2.

479

Figure 14.3 End of 1st term wiki post. She discusses this in a wiki created in Zoho (which she had resisted using in the first F2F session). In this post, Claudia demonstrates that through “metacognitive examination,” she is able to “to take a closer look” at what she is learning and to explore her “own growth in greater depth” (Lambert & Cuper, 2008, p. 267). Claudia indicates that the opportunities provided by CMC for ‘thinking together’ in “participatory power” (Sternberg, 2010, p. xv) gave her additional space and elements for deeper reflection. As seen in Figure 14.3 (earlier), the discussion with the global peer required more in-depth explanation of ‘local’ features than would have been necessary for a

480

face-to-face exchange. This type of explanation foregrounded information in such a way that it became a platform for deeper examination of aspects of teaching (e.g., assessment procedures). In fact, in her final wiki report, Claudia mentioned this particular online discussion as being a key element to a greater understanding of how she can assess her own students in the future. By the second semester, Claudia not only accepts the online exchange as a key element for her own learning experience, she now sees it as a means

481

Figure 14.4 End of 2nd term wiki post. of creating conditions for learning and using ‘distributive knowledge’ for her students. In one of the reflective wiki posts towards the end of the second term, Claudia describes a mini-activity she had designed for her local school in which students would take part in an online exchange with a school in Australia. Given that she had initially resisted taking part in the online exchange and that her first draft of a TS did not include any sort of use of technology, it stands to reason that the hands-on experience of network-based learning was influential in her final decision to use technologically-enhanced interaction to provide her students with opportunities for language use. Claudia’s activity is designed to use multimodal resources as a means for the learners to mediate and re-mediate a variety of semiotic, linguistic, cultural, and social representations. It also allows a carefully controlled ‘entry’ for students to experience the global interconnectivity and potential tensions between global (Australian) and local cultures (Catalan), while promoting critical thinking of their own values and culture. The sequence of events shows Claudia’s process towards learning how to orchestrate a collaborative process with her own students by bringing into play—through the use of technology and geographically-distributed groups—a concept of learning which she had previously been reluctant to try in her own teacher-development process. Originally, the podcast activity was conceived as an activity for collaboration (design) between the UAB–UIUC partners, followed by reflection on its implementation by the UAB partner involved in the design. However, in Claudia’s case, 482

she took the activity one step further and used and adapted the same podcast for different activities, with different groups in a collaborative task implementation with her face-to-face partners (see Figure

Figure 14.5 Reflection on implementation wiki post. 14.5). In this way, Claudia draws in new participants to the distributive knowledge she has acquired through her online exchange, casting a wider circle of knowledge-sharing members, applying ‘global’ knowledge to her ‘local’ context.

Case 2: Microanalysis of Network Learning: One Event Apart from looking at a sequence of events that take place over an extended period of time of only one participant, it is also useful to apply a more detailed analysis to one event to

483

see if it is possible to perceive features of “network learning” (Downes, 2010) taking place in that moment between various community members. The following extracts come from one online transcript of a chat meeting between three participants discussing their first drafts of their TS. The online chats were held outside of class time and were not supervised by the teachers. It is through these ‘outside the classroom’ opportunities for shared knowledge construction that the students are exposed to a wider possibility of ‘knowing’ than would be encountered in teacher-driven curricula. In Figure 14.6, it is through the “diversity of opinions and knowledge” that the participants are able to share and “connect specialized nodes” and information (Downes, 2010, p. 10). In line 29, Lynn shows slight disagreement with Caitlin’s formulation of the TS, stating that theme is more important for a reading and writing unit, but not necessary for a singular unit on writing. In line 31, Jaume picks up on a previous request for clarification (not included in this extract), also showing some doubt about the way in which the unit has been designed. Once he receives confirmation

484

Figure 14.6 Online chat transcript.

Figure 14.7 Online chat transcript (continued). that Caitlin’s overall objective is what he had assumed previously, he then offers her an alternative activity for

485

modeling the expected outcome (line 33), based on an experience that had been discussed by a F2F peer in a weekly tutorial (this exemplifies the way in which the local discourse comes into play in the online interaction between the globally-connected participants). In lines 55 through 66 (Figure 14.7), the participants work together to find “connections between fields, ideas, and concepts” (Downes, 2010, p. 10) in order to make Caitlin’s TS draft more coherent. Both Lynn and Jaume suggest variations to the ‘picture’ activity so that there will be more critical thinking by the students and in line 66 Caitlin not only accepts these suggestions, she then returns to a previous recommendation made by Jaume and discusses how this idea can be worked into this revised draft outline.

Figure 14.8 Online chat transcript (continued). In lines 81 and 84 (Figure 14.8, next), the participants appear to acknowledge that the “capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known” (Downes, 2010, p. 10) and that their ‘network knowledge’ has been facilitated through CMC. In line 83, Jaume makes the purpose of their meeting online explicit, underlining the importance of learner engagement for CMC learning tasks to be successful (see Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Meskill & Anthony, 2010, for further discussion of task-design for CMC learning). 486

Significantly, the notion of authenticity and ‘real purpose’ of online communication emerges later on in the rationale of the students’ TS design. In the same online exchange, the participants work to nurture their connections by showing interest and affect for their new partners. In Figure 14.9 (which actually occurs at the beginning of the chat session), the participants

Figure 14.9 Online chat transcript (initiation).

487

Figure 14.10 Online chat transcript (continued).

Figure 14.11 Online chat transcript (continued). demonstrate their knowledge of ‘the other’ and allow space for each one to make their ‘local’ identities relevant in the ‘online’ context. In lines 6 and 8, Lynn endeavors to use one of her partner’s languages (Spanish). Jaume responds by showing his appreciation (laughter: HAHAHAHAHA) and 488

answers her affectionately (calling her ‘guapa’ [beautiful girl], line 9). Lynn then shows her knowledge of Catalonia by acknowledging that she now needs to learn the other official language, Catalan (line 10). The third participant (Caitlin) then takes the floor to bring up the task they have been assigned to do. After a long discussion of Caitlin’s TS proposal, and before moving on to another proposal, Lynn brings up Jaume’s identity again (Figure 14.10) and shows her interest in his various ‘local identities’ (Catalan, dancer) and Jaume willingly provides her with more information. The role of affect on the learning process in cross-cultural learning processes has been examined elsewhere (see Mehra, 2007), showing that positive attitudes and feelings towards the learning situation lends itself to greater metacognitive thinking and self-regulation. The way in which the student-teachers negotiate their local and global identities lend themselves to a greater feeling of ‘connectivity’ and affect between the participants, thus contributing to the learning process. In Figure 14.11, the participants are finishing up the chat and during their farewells they come to a group conclusion that the online exchange which they had been ‘skeptical’ about had actually been “in itself a learning process” (Downes, 2010, p. 10). This has been hinted at earlier, in Figure 14.8, when Lynn says: “It’s fine. It is helpful to talk about your project. I learn by talking about stuff!” (line 84). Lynn adds that she enjoyed taking part in the online review (line 214), to which Jaume replies that this could be useful for their own students.

489

It is through a transformative model of education, wherein the student-teachers are active experimenters, that the participants in this second example draw conclusions similar to those of Claudia in Case 1. In both instances, the future teachers acknowledge the role of technology for promoting distributive learning and see how ‘local’ features of teaching can be combined with ‘global’ possibilities of working online with geographically-distributed peers.

Conclusions In today’s knowledge society, teachers are faced with the challenge to educate future ‘global citizens.’ Technology-enhanced pedagogical content can help language teachers relate the global and the local through instantiated events in local contexts and interactions. The examples given demonstrate how these future teachers have explored and learnt about using and integrating technology into their teaching practices, while discovering the ‘distributive’ characteristic of knowledge as it is commonly constructed in e-learning and ‘e-functioning.’ Furthermore, as these students pointed out, it was through the hands-on experience of being interconnected that they gained the confidence to reproduce similar circumstances for their students in the future, thereby creating conditions for the learning of ‘distributive knowledge’ in their own classrooms. For language teachers, providing opportunities for learners to use the target language for communicative purposes is a relevant part of the learning process and CMC can be a key resource for this. As Claudia mentioned in an oral summary of her learning experience:

490

I think we have to promote not only em stu- teacher faced and student interaction but also promoting interaction among students (…) and I think it’s important to promote the use of technologies in teaching and innovative tools that just as we did here with second life to be there and voicethread (…) the three last points which are the most important ones for me is that students you have to (.) at least you have to TRY that students see that they use the language for a purPOSE which is communiCATE to communicate with OTHERS; (…) you need to (.) to contextualize the LEARNING so they will see that they learn for a purpose. The final goal of any teacher education course must be to prepare future teachers to succeed in the classroom. As classrooms become more and more oriented towards the use of both local and global resources afforded through interconnected, globally-distributed situations, teacher education can help future educators assimilate competences they will need for these circumstances by providing them with hands-on experience of this type of learning. Assuredly, dialogic learning can take place in face-to-face situations. However, adding exponentially to this learning situation, CMC in language teacher education can help exemplify sound theory (e.g., the need to create authentic, purposeful language use for students) attained through technological resources and approaches (e.g., the use of CMC in project-based language learning) in order to promote innovative thinking about teaching and learning processes.

491

Annex Transcript Key text: → elongated last sound “text” → spoken softly text_ → dragging out word [text] → overlapping turns [text] TEXT → spoken loudly (.) → pause (…) → part of transcript has been left out X → exact words cannot be determined / → tone goes up \ → tone goes down

Notes 1. Moodle (Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) is a free online platform used as a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). 2. Zoho is a suite of free online applications. The student-teachers were required to create an account for the wiki platform only.

492

References Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 42−66. Barab, S.A., & Duffy, T.M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D.H. Jonassen & S.M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning (pp. 25–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bauerle, A., & Gallagher, M. (2003). Toying with technology: Bridging the gap between education and engineering. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Chesapeake, VA. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. Oxford, UK: Polity. BECTA. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning at KS3 and KS4: Learners’ use of Web 2.0 technologies in and out of school. London: BECTA. Burgess, A. (2006). The literacy practices of recording achievement: How a text mediates between the local and the global (Vol. 14). Lancaster: Lancaster Literacy Research Centre. Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

493

Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002). How does technology influence student learning? Learning & Leading with Technology, 29(8), 46–56. Dooly, M. (2009). New competencies in a new era? Examining the impact of a teacher training programme. ReCALL, 21(3), 352–369. Downes, S. (2010). Learning networks and connective knowledge. In H.H. Yang & S.C.-Y. Yuen (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking (pp. 1–26). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Farrell, T.S.C. (2005). Reflective practice for language teachers in Asia: A real paradigm shift. In Deng, X., Cole, V.M., Sadorra, M.L.C., & Wu, S.M. (Eds.), Paradigm shifts in English language teaching and learning: Selected papers from the inaugural CELC international symposium (pp. 23–27). Singapore: Centre for English Language Communication, National University of Singapore. Farrell, T.S.C. (2007). Failing the practicum: Narrowing the gap between expectation and reality with reflective practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 193–201. Farrell, T.S.C. (2008). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London: Continuum Press. Gobel, K., & Helmke, A. (2010). Intercultural learning in English as foreign language instruction: The importance of teachers’ intercultural experience and the usefulness of

494

precise instructional directives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1571–1582. Heller, M., & Martin-Jones, M. (2001). Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference. Westport, CT: Ablex. Hornberger, N.H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in Society, 27, 439–458. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers. www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267. Juster, N. (1961). The phantom tollbooth. New York, NY: Yearling/Random House Children’s Books. Kafai, Y.B., & Ching, C.C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 323–363. Kim, Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2006). Weblog worlds and construction of effective and powerful writing: Cross with care, and only where signs permit. In K. Pahl & J. Rowsell

495

(Eds.), Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice (pp. 72–92). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st-century teaching for 21st-century learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 264–276. Lamy, M.-N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Lipman, P. (2000). Bush’s education plan, globalization, and the politics of race. Cultural Logic, 4(1; Special Issue: Marxism and Education), online journal. http://eserver.org/ clogic/41/4–1.html Luk, J.C.M. (2005). Voicing the ‘self’ through an ‘other’ language: Exploring communicative language teaching for global communications. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 247–268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Malisa, M., Koetting, R., & Radermacher, K. (2007). Critical theory, globalization and teacher education in a technocratic era. Paper presented at the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI. Martin-Jones, M. (2011). Thematic overview I: Language policies, multilingual classroom: Resonances across continents. In F.M. Hult & K.A. King (Eds.), Educational linguistics in practice: Applying the local globally and the

496

global locally (pp. 3–15). Bristol, Tonawanda, New York, and Ontario: Multilingual Matters. McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Mehra, B. (2007). Affective factor in information seeking during the cross-cultural learning process of international doctoral students in library and education science. In D. Nahl & D. Bilal (Eds.), Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behaviour research and theory (pp. 279–302). Medford, NJ: ASIST Monograph Series. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol, Buffalo, and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (2000). English, politics, ideology: From colonial celebration to postcolonial performativity. In T. Ricento & T. Wiley (Eds.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 107–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Perkins, C., & Murphy, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical thinking in online discussions: An exploratory case study. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 298–307. Rueschoff, B., & Ritter, M. (2001). Technology-enhanced language learning: Construction of knowledge and template-based learning in the foreign Llnguage classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 219–232. 497

Schachinger, C., & Taylor, M. (2000). An educational framework for intercultural learning? Intercultural learning T-kit (pp. 35–38). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Song, H., Owens, E., & Kidd, T.T. (2009). Technology integration practices within a socioeconomic context: Implications for educational disparities and teacher preparation. In N. Karacapilidis (Ed.), Solutions and innovations in web-based technologies for improved platforms, tools, and applications (pp. 203–217). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Sternberg, R.J. (2010). Foreword. In M.S. Khine & I.M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. v–ix). New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, and London: Springer.

498

15 Beyond Borders, Expectations

Beyond

Online Education and Responsive Teaching Deryn P. Verity

Introduction Ideally, good teacher education lets the trainee experience good pedagogy, not just read about it. The paradox that I call the “fractal problem” of MATESOL classes (Verity, 2011) lurks, however, in too many graduate classrooms: We trainer/ educators are apt to stand in front of our classes, lecturing them on theories that explain why they should never stand in front of their own classes and lecture. They hear us preach transformation but watch us model transmission: The medium of delivery completely contradicts the message. Being lectured at rather than personally engaged makes it difficult for learners either to “appropriate the dispositions of the community… [or to] contribute to them” (Bronack, Riedl, & Tashner, 2006, p. 224). Even when participants work in classrooms while studying (Lee, Carter-Wells, Glaeser, Ivers, & Street, 2006), it can be difficult to reconcile the tension that exists between time limitations and the quantity of material to be taught. Teacher development programs continually confront the inherent contradiction between verbalism (being 499

able to talk fluently about a new concept) and profound change, a new ability to apply the concept in concrete, practical activity (Lantolf & Poehner, 2008, p. 12). This contradiction weighed on my mind particularly heavily when I was offered a chance to write and teach a survey course in theories of second language acquisition (SLA) for a new online MATESOL program. I was sure that computer-mediated instruction would hinder the potential for meaningful interaction among participants; as Dunlap, Sobel, and Sands point out (2007, p. 27), teacher education needs to be grounded in “authentic problems of practice.” Depriving student-teachers of ESL of the aural, visual, and somatic cues they need to practice reading in real classrooms seemed unfair at least, and misguided at worst. Another, more worrisome, reservation was that online instruction would make me a worse teacher. Specifically, I feared that teaching through a digital learning management system would sharply reduce my own opportunities for scaffolding and mediation, because those activities depend on expert judgments and responses, which in turn depend on a continuous stream of observational data. I predicted that without being able to watch my students in the “real world,” I would be at a disadvantage in terms of both instructing and mentoring them. MATESOL training is a fluid mixture of apprenticeship (students often bring a good amount of classroom experience to their MA program) and scholarship (they often have little awareness of the field as an academic discipline; Carter, 2007). An important element of teacher education in our field takes the form of situated discussions about literacy practices: As Casanave and Li (2008, p. 17) point out, it is quite normal 500

for graduate students “to find the cultural and intellectual adjustment to graduate level literacy practices challenging.” I worried that the disconnect between time zones, the lack of social cues, and the laborious process of putting everything into words while simultaneously observing netiquette and avoiding offense (Lu & Jeng, 2006), would be so time-consuming and effortful that it would ultimately lead everyone in the class, including me, to engage in what Dennen and Wieland calls “message posting more… than actual dialogue” (2007, p. 281). One reason for the depth of my worry is that even in graduate courses, I do not lecture. My approach to teaching is grounded in sociocultural, or Vygotskyan, principles (see, for example, Donato, 2004; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Poehner, 2008; Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011). Good instruction, from this perspective, is strategic mediation of novice activity. Even a class focusing on theoretical concepts must invite students into dialogic participation from the first day. Would it be possible to engage online students in a productive instructional dialogue that was responsive and collaborative? Despite my reservations, and frankly, low expectations, the chance to critically examine my own expertise and to recast it to suit the demands of a new medium was a welcome opportunity for personal development. John-Steiner insists on the “pluralism” of cognitive tools, and I decided to exploit this chance to become more fully “ambidextrous” in my expertise (John-Steiner, 1995, p. 2). A concise description of the socio-cultural understanding of pedagogy is given by Teemant, Smith, Pinnegar, and Egan (2005, p. 1677), when they explain that “learning is social… teaching is assisting… performance is situated.” Though it takes as its illustrative material a single course offered by one MA TESOL program, 501

this chapter outlines some general ways in which online course design can indeed be social and interactive, assistance-rich, responsive to the requirements of specific learners, reflective, and successful in effecting cognitive and professional growth and development.

Building Intersubjectivity Online From a sociocultural perspective, successful learning cannot happen unless intersubjectivity is created between teacher and learners. This concept can be metaphorically understood as the place where expert and novice knowledge can meet and engage each other, what Swain et al. label as having “enough common ground to proceed” (2011, p. 24). Experts see the world differently than novices, and unless the two perspectives achieve at least minimal alignment, little change will take place in the novice’s understanding. For example, a teacher often explains the goals of the class on the first day of the semester, but they may make little sense to the students at that point. It is only as the semester progresses that those goals become comprehensible and meaningful to the students. As novices, the students need to engage with the material, to construct their own versions of what have been labeled the “dilemmas” of the discipline (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p. 75), in order to be able even to see, let alone to pursue, the goals that are so obvious to the instructor. Giving the novice a toehold in the material, a footing to move forward from, is often the first task at hand. In the process of becoming an online instructor, I have found that online instruction, paradoxical as it seemed to me in the

502

early stages of my own development, actually increases the odds for successful creation and maintenance of intersubjectivity. There are several reasons for this. First, in a face-to-face class, the instructor’s introductory remarks may be only partially followed and then forgotten, but online, everything is written down and can be consulted repeatedly, which increases the likelihood that it will be understood or, if not, at least interrogated. In addition, other students’ interpretations and clarifications are all available for consultation. In the first week, many simple tasks are assigned in which everyone “talks” to everyone else. Requiring communication to be multidirectional, rather than directed solely at the instructor, brings important questions, misunderstandings, and explanations into public circulation. Keeping it low-stakes invites everyone to participate. Intersubjectivity can only happen if both instructor and learner engage with each other and with the material. A big difference between online and face-to-face education is that online, a student must speak up to be counted as present. A quiet student can sit in the corner of a physical classroom and give off cues about his or her level of participation: “I am quiet because I don’t understand” or “I am quiet because I have no problems understanding; I just don’t feel like talking very much.” (Of course, misinterpretation is always possible: Casanave notes that even graduate students may “sit silently… because the language [is] simply not accessible or embodied yet” [Casanave & Li, 2008, p. 21] which may mislead an instructor into thinking that a student is not interested or motivated to do well.) Online, however, a quiet student is an invisible one. We (my writing and teaching in this program has been in collaboration 503

with a colleague, so I use the plural pronoun freely in the discussion that follows) insist from the first day of the semester that participation is required; at the same time, we provide spaces for many different kinds of participation, from recounting a childhood experience to bringing up a recent TV program that seems to relate to the material. We demonstrate in this way that all forms of even peripheral participation are welcome and supported (Bronack et al., 2006). Our survey of SLA theories starts out by eliciting mostly personal narratives and experiences, encouraging even the least-knowledgeable student to participate fully in the discussions from the onset of the course. The teacher in a traditional classroom can judge when and how to use student-centered or student-led activities, choosing to balance such tasks with teacher-fronted presentation. Online, the only way to be sure that students are active is to require them to make their engagement visible. Throughout the semester in the class being described here, students are asked to work on assignments that require interaction and collaboration in several directions: Some tasks or posts are directed towards the instructor alone, whereas others are meant to be read only by other students. The Discussion Board (DB), with threads relating to each major topic within any given unit, is the regular forum for comments, responses, and questions about readings and tasks. Student participants also keep a Dialogue Journal with a partner or a small group. In this semi-private space (other students do not have access, but instructors do), they can create their own discussion threads, focus on the topics or issues (or complaints) that they feel are important, and raise questions or concerns with each other before putting them out in front of the whole class. 504

Other, more formal, tasks include five brief bi-weekly Critical Reflective Response papers (CRRs). As the name suggests, this assignment emphasizes reflection, not outside research. Besides giving the instructor an idea of how well a student is understanding the material, the CRRs provide a forum for us to give extensive individual feedback, criticism, and encouragement. There is also a Classroom Observation report, done individually, and a group research project, the Annotated Bibliography (AB). The AB is a capstone project involving theme-based investigation of the professional literature. Both of these late-semester projects are posted on the DB so that everyone in the class can read and comment on them. The instructor provides detailed individual feedback privately as well. Many participants in MATESOL programs generally, and this one specifically, are there because of a mid-career change of direction, and while they may have gained quite a bit of language teaching experience, they often have never formally studied any field even tangentially connected to applied linguistics. This lack of shared background knowledge actually helps the online instructor in the quest to create intersubjectivity because the need to build a fundamental, and shared, base of knowledge and understanding can be explicitly invoked. A crucial element in building this base is the strategic recounting of, and reflecting on, personal experiences and narratives, an approach to understanding difficult material that is thoroughly grounded in the genetic, or developmental, perspective of sociocultural theory (Swain et al., 2011, p. xii). A sociocultural pedagogy legitimizes past experience and future potential, seeing the learner’s various stages of development as retrievable and dynamic, always accessible at least symbolically. 505

Developing Scientific Concepts from Informal Knowledge The class described in this chapter does not try to “cover” every single theory of SLA in the space of 15 weeks; much like other survey courses in MA programs, it aims to introduce students to the range of explanations that research in SLA has produced over the past several decades. The 15-week class is organized into 14 units of 1 or 2 weeks each; each unit addresses a selected set of theoretical approaches and principles that have been important in the field. Rather than focus on research findings in detail, we attempt to develop understanding of several discipline-specific theoretical stances by leading the students to make active connections between their lived experience and the new theoretical constructs being introduced. To take one example, the first task the students are asked to complete, after posting a self-introduction, is to create a language biography and discuss it with their journal partners. This is a chart or narrative account of all the foreign languages they have ever studied, lived or worked in, had exposure to, etc. The partner’s task is to ask three questions about the document. In another task assigned early on, students are asked to recall examples of formal and informal learning experiences they have experienced. This task always brings up interesting recollections (childhood lessons in swimming, fencing, etc.; adventures in acculturation; marital misunderstandings). There is no pressure to make these posts formal, or technical: We are interested in the content and the writer’s own understanding of the episode. To the students, these friendly and casual memories are shared as a “warm up” activity; in 506

fact, to the instructors, they are first steps to recoding experience into taxonomic knowledge, a nudge on the door into the domain of applied linguistics and its specific discourse. Through these brief narratives, students are exposed, for example, to the concepts of foreigner talk: “… people tend to shout their original sentence at the confused foreigner, rather than rephrasing…”; code switching and code mixing: “… we both use Czech and English interchangeably, often starting sentences in one language only to finish them in the other…”; tolerance of ambiguity: “… she had to use what she knew of Latvian language and culture from her parents to imagine what their French really meant…”; and prescriptivism and register: “… you can’t understand a word he says because… he is speaking fast in a poorish sort of dialect.…” These engaging and relatively easy activities are designed to serve two purposes: first, they introduce in familiar and informal terms basic issues in SLA in terms of what Vygotsky (as cited in Lantolf & Poehner, 2008, p. 11) called “spontaneous concepts.” This kind of knowledge is informal, unstructured, and gained through personal experience and observation. Formal education, such as an MATESOL program, develops what Vygotsky called “scientific concepts” which are, unsurprisingly, formal, taxonomic in structure, and gained mostly through reflection, instruction, and the mediation of experts using semiotic and material tools (Lantolf & Poehner, 2008; Verity, 2011). Second, the tasks illustrate how ordinary lives embody and reflect SLA principles and concepts (John-Steiner, 1995). By first recounting, and then recasting, their lived experiences, the students come to see that theory is not distant, but proximal, to their own lives and activities. 507

Of course, some students view these introductory tasks as a waste of time, presumably because they interpret our purpose as primarily affective, to make people feel relaxed and comfortable with each other. In such cases, we do not hesitate to explain that, although we do want the atmosphere to be non-threatening, our purpose in eliciting narratives is mostly cognitive: Seeing a technical term through an easy-to-grasp story allows the more-novice learner to get at least a brief glimpse of the content material with a clarity that is typically restricted to an expert member of the target discourse community. Through strategic use of personal experience and narrative, the students can see how “life” and “theory” are not opposing constructs, but dialectical ones: Theory is a way of knowing that depends on practical activity, and all practical activity has some kind of theoretical stance inherent in it, even if that stance is entirely unconscious or unarticulated. The other reason for engaging the students in a variety of tasks, some of them apparently easy or casual, is to construct what Thorne (2003, p. 1) calls a “culture of use,” which must be explicated in every online environment. Expectations of participation patterns, frequency of posting, willingness to raise questions, and other kinds of behaviors that are fundamental to the successful proceedings can be both practiced and commented on. By requiring extensive posts, responses, comments, and reflections from the first day, we can, as was mentioned earlier, more easily gauge which students need a nudge to be more present in the class. It is always gratifying to see the rapid development in the students’ ability to “talk the talk” of the discipline. Within the relatively short space of 15 weeks posts improve in technical specificity exponentially, going from this: “I thought I was 508

going to drown” and “I have no idea if it’s a real method but I used it in my classroom…” to this, which is a representative extract of the DB posts that go up in response to the Annotated Bibliography projects in the final week of the semester: Nakuma’s hypothesis about fossilization, as I understand it, is that it essentially results when a learner decides that a particular L2 form does not have to be acquired because it is already available through L1. In other words, the learner identifies the L2 form in L1. (Why learn the L2 form when it’s already available?) When the fit, so to speak, is good (a perfect overlap), positive fossilization occurs; when the forms are, in fact, not the same, negative fossilization occurs. Thus, the learner has made an interlingual identification error. Therefore, in order to “correct” the negative fossilization (or “defossilize” the form), the reason for the inter-lingual identification must be addressed. I hope this was helpful.

Mediation Through Class Artifacts The sociocultural explanation of how learning and development happens gives central roles to semiotic and material artifacts (see Johnson, 2009, p. 39, for an example of how “teacher-authored accounts” can mediate teacher learning). Tools to support, enable, and extend learning are everywhere in the world, from the language that is used in an instructional sequence to a physical object such as a text or a telephone. Teaching online through a completely digital learning management system (familiar examples include Moodle and BlackBoard) reduces the toolbox to text, though of course video and audio are relatively easy to incorporate.

509

In our class, we avoid requiring the use of audio or video, for a variety of reasons, including technological constraints and task overload (other teachers in the program use video regularly). Even in our text-centered class, however, online instruction turns out to provide a rich environment for the construction and accessibility of artifacts due to the archival nature of the medium. As mentioned briefly above, everything that is ever “said” in the course is available for unlimited, repeated access. The Discussion Board, which in the context of the course is as casual and “throwaway” as any set of interactions, ends up being, when compared to ephemeral in-class discussions in traditional classrooms, robust and durable. Both students and instructors can, and do, go back to earlier posts and discussions and review them, for fuller comprehension and to identify points of difficulty (Dalsgaard & Godsk, 2007). The ability to re-access earlier stages of their own understanding helps students develop not only more solid knowledge of facts and theories, but also, and crucially, stronger awareness of their own learning and development (Dunlap et al., 2007). In this brief chapter it is not possible to discuss all the ways in which we create, and help students access, semiotic and material artifacts, such as the online library, websites, other students’ projects, and so forth. But I will briefly talk about one task that illustrates the principle clearly. Recall the assignment in which students produce a personal language biography. One purpose of this task is to elicit a personal narrative focused on language acquisition. Another is to create a pedagogical artifact that can provide for the students a glimpse of what might be called the “higher-order structure” of the course (Bradley, Thom, Hayes, & Hay, 510

2008). In this class, for clarity, SLA theories are discussed in terms of three general categories: linguistic, psychological, and social. As part of the original biography task, students are instructed to ask and answer three questions. In the unit following that initial assignment, students are asked to retrieve their questions. We then help the students recode them in terms of the three organizational rubrics of the course. In this way, the questions become semiotic tools that help the students gain insight into the new, and relatively unfamiliar, domain of second language acquisition theory. Using their own questions, rather than an objective list, to introduce the taxonomy of SLA research approaches, we make explicit the technical counterparts to the informal topics that the questions have raised: Remember those questions that you asked your partner about the Language Biography…. • If you wondered, Isn’t it really hard to learn read all those Chinese characters? you were taking a linguistic theoretical stance. • If you asked, Why did you study Greek for six weeks in junior high school? you were looking through a psychological theoretical lens. • And if you asked your partner “Who spoke Urdu in your childhood home?” you were taking a social theoretical stance. The students’ own questions gain a new and more powerful semiotic significance both in the progress of the class and in the process of their own learning.

511

The actual writing down of experience, as required by the online environment, that is, being required to produce an actual material artifact rather than engage in tasks involving only thinking or speaking, seems to help online students engage more deeply with the ideas and with the new disciplinary domain. Having to use new terms helps make those terms meaningful; as John-Steiner points out, semiotic tools, such as language, do not just represent thought, they transform it (John-Steiner, 1995). Seeing their casual questions relabeled in terms of a formal taxonomy jumpstarts a small but crucial transformation for our students.

Reflection and Development Apprenticeship is a large part of MATESOL education. As mentioned earlier, many students enter MATESOL programs with plenty of practical experience but little skill or training in how to make sense of, or how to talk or think about, their teaching experiences. Indeed, for many of them, the MA program is the first time they are asked to reflect on, interpret, or even describe what they have done as teachers or students of language. A major purpose of the online class described here is to help student participants practice what Johnson (2009, p. 25) describes as retrospective interpretation of their own classroom experiences, both as learners and as teachers. Their practical experience in the classroom has, most probably, taught them a lot, but they do not know exactly what! Through reflective tasks, and through tasks that ask them to discuss their developing skills of reflection, they gain greater understanding not only of the theoretical content of the readings and tasks, but also of how their own activity may incorporate or illuminate those theories. 512

Expert activity is characterized by automatic and generally smooth instantiation. We tend to stumble, verbally or physically, only when there is an obstacle that interrupts our automatic progress. According to sociocultural theory, verbal speech that seems to be directed outwards but in fact is self-directed serves to help the speaker regulate his or her activity when there has been a stumble or miscalculation. The more formal the speaking context, the more obvious it is when a speaker is directing an utterance self-wards, because in informal conversation there is always a lot of social and self-regulating speech going on nearly simultaneously. The Discussion Board (DB), being both dialogical and relatively casual, is a place where this kind of regulatory speech, what Vygotsky calls “private speech,” an externalized form of thinking, makes frequent appearances (Verity, 2006). The appearance of private speech in otherwise social speech, such as in a DB post, suggests that the speaker/writer is still working on mastering the task or material. From a Vygotskyan perspective, output is not only social and communicative in function, but also cognitive and metacognitive (Lantolf & Poehner, 2008). The online class is specifically designed to encourage thinking out loud as an essential tool to support learning. Posting tasks on the DB are often explicitly designed to provoke thought and talk about thought. Comments such as “I am starting to realize…” and “your post made me think about…” and “we just don’t realize…” and it “brought home to me that…” appear often, especially when a new theory or principle is introduced and the students use the DB to talk it through. As indicators of how well students are becoming more expert and autonomous in their handling of the material,

513

these phrases are crucial for us to be able to respond and comment appropriately in our own DB posts. Given that every online semester produces literally thousands of posts, there is no way to provide here more than a sample of typical reflective comments. Students often talk about something in the past that caused them to enter the MATESOL program, a reflection that helps them shape future goals for their graduate study: The reason I’m in this program is that while I do know something about my native language, more than just speaking it fluently, I am woefully ignorant of all the theories and methods we’re studying. My teaching was full of correct information and good intentions, but that was definitely not enough to be of any long-term help to my students. They frequently mention the cognitive changes they feel happening as the class progresses and they are required to interact and engage with so many other minds, utterances, and histories: “My mind is being bombarded with new ideas… “; “I hadn’t considered that before, but now I see…”; “My mind is buzzing with possible questions.…” And they comment on how learning about this one corner of the discipline improves their ability to continue learning and developing autonomously outside of the class, a sure indicator of greater expertise: “I’d like to become more aware of…”; “… the wide array of research and reading we’ve done has raised my awareness of the breadth of resources available to me as a growing scholar in the field of TESOL….”

514

Comments frequently corroborate our principled belief in the mentoring function of the class: While I was doing the research and reading the countless journal entries… for the first time, I really felt like I belonged in this profession. And the main reason: I understood everything (i.e. the concepts and the terminology) that the researchers were talking about in their scholarly journals…. In the middle and at the end of the semester, students are explicitly asked to reflect upon and evaluate their own activity in the class (a separate task from filling in the official class evaluation questionnaire, which is done through the university). Responses often comment on the very task of reflection itself: “The most rewarding aspect of this course was also the most challenging for me—this was the self-analytical nature of many of our assignments. I found it truly valuable….” Not surprisingly, the emphasis on interaction throughout the semester is often mentioned: “I saw things that I would not have been able to see on my own, and learned a lot more by sharing my experiences with my group members….” Once in a while the student displays a glimmering of understanding of the fractal design issue itself: This class appears to have used some ideas found in Vygotsky’s theories, and they have been quite successful…. It is just a thought, but it seems like our course was set up with Vygotsky in mind? Is this true? My last paragraph describes activity scaffolding, doesn’t it? And how about all 515

the group and pair work that we did throughout the course? It all sounds like vintage Vygotsky to me. And, to close, one of my favorite student-produced comments on the class: The other thing I wanted to say is that I’ve been honestly puzzled by the way this course has been “delivered”. I’ve never had a class where the professor(s) seemed only to want us to learn. Well, mystery solved! This course is the way it is because [the instructors] practice the Vygotsky they preach! This student comment is a vindication of our efforts to imbue the class with principles of sociocultural theory, of course, but it is even more satisfying to see that by modeling good instruction, we have set a chain of future activity in motion, a sign that we have escaped, at least to some extent, the fractal paradox: From my experience in this class, it is apparent to me that all these components have been in effect since day 1… my final evaluation will reflect not quantity of words or correct answers, but rather sufficient growth to move on. That is a new way for me to consider my own students and will no doubt take some time to figure out how to do it well.

Conclusion To summarize, before I wrote and taught online classes, I feared that I would be unable, as an instructor, mentor, and role model, to respond to the specific needs of my individual students; that it would be difficult or impossible to adapt,

516

explain, or tweak assignments and tasks once they were available online; and that the lack of familiar physical cues, feedback, and sensory data would blunt my ability to be supportive, expert, and helpful when engaging with the material and with the students. In fact, I found that the online environment not only supported but in fact required greater interaction than a face-to-face classroom; that in many ways it is easier to gauge participation and understanding online than in person; and that the flexibility of asynchronous interaction actually allowed me to spend more time getting to know and to be able to respond to student needs, requests, and problems. Each semester that I teach online I now “enter” the virtual classroom with more confidence, and it is the same kind of confidence that I spent years building in the confines of the physical classroom: It is based on a string of successful and sometimes less-than-successful choices, adaptations, and responses that I make in collaboration with the group of students who have elected to join the course. There is no question that online instruction is greedy: It demands much more time, many more different kinds of times, and more concentrated labor (typing is simply harder than speaking), but through learning how to teach online, I have once again learned more about my own beliefs and practices as a teacher, and am more committed than ever to a pedagogy grounded in sociocultural theory. The students have benefited, too, from the rich semiotic environment of the online class. Though they, too, often mention that they miss the personal interactions of a traditional classroom, they also realize that having to put everything into writing can be beneficial to their own 517

development. As one DB post put it, and I love this comment because it kind of summarizes sociocultural theory in an elegant nutshell: … journaling is learning. (I’m just thinking out loud here)… writing is learning…. The secret weapon to successful online education, on top of fractal instructional design (practice what you preach!) and interesting content, seems to be that it takes a lot of time. It is the history of repeated encounters, explorations, questions, and interactions that results in the transformations that the students undergo. Life in the digital world opens up a universe of possible conversations, but they demand a commitment of time taken out of life in the “real” world. In this online teaching experience, I had the chance to see these two worlds come into fruitful and exciting, if sometimes exhausting, contact. Our students lived, worked, and studied from all over the physical world; our interactions went above, through, and beyond borders. The activity of the class transformed not only my novice students’ knowledge of SLA, but also my own understanding of what can be done in the “classroom,” however that word is defined. It truly reached beyond borders and beyond my expectations.

References Bradley, M.E., Thom, L.R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity

518

and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 888–900. Bronack, S., Riedl, R., & Tashner, J. (2006). Learning in the zone: A social constructivist framework for distance education in a 3-dimensional virtual world. Interactive Learning Environments, 14, 219–232. Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58, 385–418. Casanave, C.P., & Li, X. (Eds.). (2008). Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Dalsgaard, C., & Godsk, M. (2007). Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning: Challenges and experiences. Open Learning, 22, 29–42. Dennen, V.P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28, 281–297. Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284–302.

519

Dunlap, J.C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D.I. (2007). Supporting students’ cognitive processing in online courses: Designing for deep and meaningful student-to-content interactions. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 51, 20–33. Johnson, K. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. John-Steiner, V. (1995). Cognitive pluralism: A sociocultural approach. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 2–11. Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural approaches to second language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (Eds.). (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Lee, J., Carter-Wells, J., Glaeser, B., Ivers, K., & Street, C. (2006). Facilitating the development of a learning community in an online graduate program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7, 13–33. Lu, L., & Jeng, I. (2006). Knowledge construction in inservice teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 183–202. Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

520

Teemant, A., Smith, M., Pinnegar, S., & Egan, M.W. (2005). Modeling sociocultural pedagogy in distance education. Teachers College Record, 107, 1675–1698. Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 38–67. Verity, D.P. (2006). How professionals think: Private speech in teaching. Paper presented at the JALT2005 Conference “Sharing Our Stories, Shizuoka, Japan. Verity, D.P. (2011). The reverse move: Enriching informal knowledge in the pedagogical grammar class. In K. Johnson & P. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on teacher professional development. New York: Routledge, 153–167.

521

Part VI Teacher Learning Cross-Cultural Contexts

522

in

16 Developing Intercultural Understanding in Teacher Education within the Context of Language and Literacy across the Curriculum Vitaliy Shyyan, William Dunn, and Laurent Cammarata Across North America, as in other parts of the world, the ethnic, cultural, and linguistic makeup of schools is changing rapidly and dramatically as a result of shifting dynamics in immigration. Demographic statistics collected since the early 1990s reveal a large increase in the number of English language learners (ELLs) enrolled in K–12 schools (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007; Statistics Canada, 2005; Statistics Canada, 2007). In 2006, ELLs represented approximately 10% of the total student population in the U.S., making it the fastest-growing student population in the nation (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007; Hoffman & Sable, 2006; Levine & McCloskey, 2009). Similarly in Canada in 2006, 9% of students spoke a non-official language at home, and this

523

population comprised approximately 20% in Toronto and Vancouver (Statistics Canada, 2007). The impact that such a social and cultural metamorphosis has in the field of education is well illustrated by Early (2001), whose work described a school in Vancouver in which 20 different cultures coexisted and where more than 70% of the school population had a native language other than English. This type of situation poses new and complex challenges for K–12 teachers of every subject area and grade level. Teachers must be able to address not only the needs of language learners in the classroom, but also the needs of culturally diverse learners, who have, at times, very different worldviews and cultural frameworks. In the current educational context characterized by unprecedented diversity, teachers of all subject areas face the challenge of meeting the needs of ELLs having a wide range of language proficiency and whose degree of intercultural awareness often varies greatly. Thus, the characteristics and needs of ELLs vary according to contextual factors (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). In the Canadian context, beyond the common trait that ELLs are all learners whose first language is not English and who must learn English as a new language (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005), they are a very diverse group. The ELL population includes not only immigrants, but also many Canadian-born children of immigrant families. Other ELLs are from Canada’s aboriginal communities or French-speaking regions, for example. Some ELLs may have received limited formal schooling and may still struggle with literacy in their native language, whereas others are already academically literate. As a consequence, ELLs enter school 524

with a spectrum of linguistic skills and academic knowledge (Echevarría, Short, & Powers, 2006) as well as cultural backgrounds. Because the mainstreaming of ELLs is now a common educational practice in North America and elsewhere, ELLs “are no longer confined to pull-out programs but are expected to integrate as quickly as possible into the regular educational setting along with native speakers of English” (Curtin, 2009, p. 2). This implies that all K–12 teachers, regardless of their subject-area specialty, must engage in language teaching in order to respond to the needs of ELLs. At the same time, they must be able to respond to the wide range of cultural backgrounds that ELLs, and non-ELLs alike, bring to the classroom. In order to build inclusive communities in the culturally and linguistically diverse context of today’s schools, teachers are faced with the double task of developing their own intercultural competence while also working to develop that of their students (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2010). Faced with such an overwhelming responsibility, it is not surprising that teachers often feel inadequately prepared (e.g., Abbott, Dunn, & Aberdeen, 2012; Waxman & Padrón, 2002). Teacher education has a pivotal role to play in redressing this situation. As noted by Trumbull and Pacheco (2005), “When teacher preparation and professional development include attention to issues of culture…, teachers can develop their cultural knowledge and, importantly, a sense of self-efficacy, which in turn is positively related to student engagement and achievement” (p. 26). Thus, teacher education is implicated not only in developing the intercultural competence of teachers, but also in fostering intercultural understanding 525

among K–12 learners, who will require this essential leadership attribute in our increasingly diverse society. There exist various approaches to classroom instruction when it comes to the goals of developing learners’ intercultural competence, whether the learners are K–12 students or pre-service teachers. In their review of literature on culture learning and language education, Paige, Jorstadt, Siaya, Klein, and Colby (2003) single out culture-specific learning, which entails aspects and behaviors of a specific cultural group or setting, and culture-general learning with the focus on metacultural principles that are applicable across various contexts. Currently, the linguo-cultural diversity of classrooms in many educational systems requires considering culture-general approaches contextualized by culture-specific examples. Müller-Jacquier (2004) identifies four different approaches of learning about other cultures: (1) through direct exposure to another culture, (2) through classroom teaching of cognitive content, (3) through the means of online interaction, and (4) through discussing linguistic differences in the classroom. More recently, the blog technology has been increasingly employed in facilitating intercultural communication and developing intercultural competence (Eola & Oskoz, 2008; Lee, 2011). These approaches are rooted within the premises of constructivism and capitalize on the developmental nature of intercultural competence. Bennett, Bennett, and Allen (2003) ground their constructivist approach of the development of intercultural competence in the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS; M.J. Bennett, 1993). This model is comprised of six stages within a continuum of intercultural competence 526

development—three ethnocentric ones (denial, defense, minimization) and three ethnorelative ones (acceptance, adaptation, integration). In the ethnocentric stages, individuals experience reality through the lens of their own culture. In contrast, individuals in the ethnorelative stages perceive reality through multiple cultural perspectives. Bennett et al. (2003) propose sequencing instruction in accordance with the characteristics and needs of individuals in each developmental stage to facilitate the growth of intercultural competence in the language classroom most effectively. Thus, learners with ethnocentric orientations should be exposed to content that emphasizes cultural similarities and highlights some visible cultural differences, whereas instruction for learners with ethnorelative orientations should include more complex intercultural concepts and approaches, such as value and norm differences and independent research across cultures.

The Study Research Goals and Significance This chapter describes a research project carried out in conjunction with a teacher education course on language, literacy, and culture across the curriculum. The principal objective was to trace the development of student-teachers’ intercultural competence and their understanding of the relationship among language, literacy, and culture. The significance of the research stems largely from the fact that it addresses several areas that are currently key concerns in the field of teacher education. These areas include adolescent literacy, addressing language, literacy, and culture across the 527

curriculum, working with ESL learners, and preparing teachers for culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The study provides an opportunity to understand better how these various areas of teacher education intersect, how they can be effectively addressed together within the context of a single teacher education course, and how they might impact future teachers’ perspectives and practices.

Research Context The research was carried out in conjunction with a required teacher education course on language, literacy, and culture delivered at a major university in western Canada. The course was designed to prepare future secondary-level teachers to work in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms by helping them understand the interrelations among language, literacy, and culture, along with how these connections affect teaching practices in all subject areas. Offered in a compressed 9-week timeframe, the course immediately preceded the initial teaching practicum in the students’ bachelor of education program. It was taught in a large-group format with approximately 120 students in each section of the course. Specific course objectives included helping students develop an understanding of the roles of language in education, teaching, and learning in all subject areas; language and literacy in cross-cultural contexts; planning for cultural and linguistic diversity in classrooms; and ways to support English language learners in the classroom across all subject areas. The course assignments included: (1) a series of reflections on language and culture; (2) a unit plan and a

528

lesson plan for teaching curricular content in a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom; and (3) a final meta-reflection on language, literacy, and culture in education. The large-class format created some challenges by limiting the types of activities that could be used in meeting the course objectives. Although we acknowledge the value of experiential approaches to learning about culture, much of the emphasis in the course was on raising awareness through information rather than direct intercultural exposure. Given the practical constraints of the course format, we were able to use two of the approaches for cultural learning identified by Müller-Jacquier (2004), namely, the teaching of cognitive content and the discussion of linguistic differences. An example of the former was comparing the drop-out rates of ELL students versus those whose first language is English in order to draw attention to the challenges the many ELLs face in schools. An example of the latter was discussing cross-cultural variation in communication features such as non-verbal gestures, speech rate, and conversational turn-taking. Reflection assignments were designed to create opportunities for the student-teachers to link course content with their own background knowledge and experiences. Personal reflections were based on the notion that awareness of one’s own cultural identity is an essential first step towards developing intercultural awareness and gaining a greater understanding of other cultures (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2010).

529

Method Participants The findings reported here are based on data collected from 21 students enrolled in one section of the teacher education course. Of the 116 students in the class, 72 consented to be involved in the research, and a complete data set was available for 21 students. The complete data set included both administrations of the IDI (pre and post), as well as the introductory survey and final meta-reflection. Among the 21 participants, 52% were male and 48% were female. As for their age distribution at the time of the study, 28% of all the participants were between 18 and 21 years old, 47% were between 22 and 30 years old, 5% were between 31 and 40 years old, 10% were between 41 and 50 years old, and 10% were between 51 and 60 years old. The participants represented a range of subject areas: career and technology studies (57%), science (23%), second languages (10%), mathematics (5%), and social studies (5%). Because intercultural competence was the focus of the study, information was collected about the participants’ international experiences. Responses indicated that 47% of all the students had no prior experience of living in another country, 10% had spent under 3 months abroad, 5% had between 3 and 6 months of prior international experience, 19% had lived in another country for 1 to 2 years, another 5% had lived abroad for a period between 3 and 5 years, and the remaining 14% had lived abroad for over 10 years.

530

Data and Analysis The research involved a mixed-method approach that combined quantitative and qualitative analyses. Sources of data were the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) questionnaire, as well as students’ written responses to open-ended survey questions and reflection prompts. In addition to providing a multi-perspectival view of the student-teachers’ understandings and development, the combination of these forms of analysis and data sources allowed for the findings to be triangulated. Intercultural Development Inventory The IDI is a well-established instrument for assessing intercultural competence. It was administered in a pre and post manner to assess changes in the student-teachers’ cross-cultural understanding. Based on the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity created by Bennett (1986; M.J. Bennett, 1993) and further developed by Hammer (2009), the IDI offers a statistically reliable, cross-culturally valid measure of an individual’s or group’s intercultural competence. It consists of 50 questionnaire items, as well as a series of demographic questions reflective of participants’ ranges of viewpoints towards cultural differences. Once the questionnaire is completed, the IDI software allows for the generation of an individual or group profile of the overall position of the respondent(s) on a developmental continuum of orientations that range from the monocultural mindsets referred to as “denial” and “polarization,” to the transitional mindset known as “minimization,” to the more intercultural mindsets

531

of “acceptance” and “adaptation” (Hammer, 2009). This inventory was employed to measure the novice teachers’ orientations towards cultural difference as a way of gaining insight into their ability to accommodate different cultures in the classroom. Introductory Survey An instructor-designed survey was administered at the beginning of the course to gain a better understanding of the student-teachers’ perceptions of importance of culture, language, and instructional content in their careers. The survey question relevant to the focus of this chapter is “What role do you feel culture plays within the context of teaching and learning the specific subject matter you will teach?” Students’ responses to this question were analyzed qualitatively to identify their views and understandings at the outset of the course. The analysis followed an inductive process described by Hatch (2002). Multiple readings of the written responses allowed for the identification of patterns, or recurring ideas, which were then grouped into themes. Finally, excerpts were selected from the data to illustrate and support the themes that had been identified. Final Meta-Reflection At the end of the course, the student-teachers completed a written meta-reflection assignment focusing on the course content, its implications, anticipated challenges, and ways of resolving them. The written responses were analyzed qualitatively for insights into the student-teachers’ developing perspectives on language and culture in school settings. The

532

analysis of students’ written reflections followed the same inductive process (Hatch, 2002) described earlier for the introductory survey data.

Results Results of the study are reported in the following order: IDI findings, introductory survey results, and insights from the final meta-reflection course assignment.

Intercultural Development Inventory The IDI was administered at the beginning and end of the course with a period of nearly 2 months between the two administrations. The obtained results were used not only to inform this study but also to provide the participants with a conceptualization of their orientations towards cultural commonality and difference as well as an awareness of their inter-cultural competence. Pre-Test Results The group profile for this sample indicated that the group’s self-perceived orientation score was 123.32 points and fell within the adaptation orientation on the IDI developmental continuum. The actual developmental score for this sample, however, was 97.90 points, representing the minimization orientation. The gap between the perceived and actual orientations of the group of student-teachers (a difference of 25.42 points) indicates that the research participants substantially overestimated their level of intercultural competence. Although the student-teachers perceived 533

themselves to be effective at recognizing and appreciating patterns of cultural difference in their own and other cultures, the IDI results point to the group’s tendency to highlight commonalities across cultures, which can mask important cultural differences with respect to values, perceptions, and behaviors. A closer look at the range of the developmental orientations of this group of student-teachers (Figure 16.1) reveals the distribution of developmental orientations within the sample. The results show that minimization was a leading orientation, and polarization was a trailing, or secondary, orientation. Polarization can be exhibited through defense or reversal. Defense is characterized by an uncritical view towards one’s own cultural values and practices and an overly critical view towards others’ cultural values and practices. Reversal can be seen as the opposite of defense in that it is characterized by an overly critical orientation towards one’s own cultural values and practices and an uncritical view towards the cultural values and practices of another culture. The most

534

Figure 16.1 Distribution of developmental orientations (pre-test). recent version of the IDI (Hammer, 2009) groups these seemingly opposite trends together because defense and reversal both involve focusing on cultural differences in a polarizing manner where one culture is seen as preferable to another. Post-Test Results The second administration of the IDI to the same group of student-teachers showed similar overall scores for the group’s perceived and actual developmental orientations, but there were notable differences in the distribution of orientations with the group. The group’s self-perceived orientation score on the post-test was 124.13 points, falling within the

535

adaptation orientation on the IDI developmental continuum. The actual developmental orientation score was 99.40, which falls in the minimization orientation. The orientation gap showed a difference of 24.73 points. These findings are parallel to those obtained during the IDI pre-test. A detailed analysis of the range of the developmental orientations during the second administration, however, points to some differences from the pre-test findings. Figure 16.2 highlights this range and distribution, which indicates that some students moved from the monocultural orientation of polarization to the transitional orientation of minimization. Moreover, the trailing orientation of polarization found in the first administration of the IDI was no longer apparent in the second administration.

Figure 16.2 Distribution of developmental orientations (post-test). 536

Introductory Survey The survey administered at the beginning of the course provided information about the student-teachers’ views related to teaching in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The findings presented here are based on the components of the survey that dealt specifically with culture. For the question “What role do you feel culture plays within the context of teaching and learning the specific subject matter you (will) teach?,” participants were asked to choose one of the following responses: essential, important, somewhat important, not important, and undecided. They were also asked to provide open-ended written comments to explain their response. The survey component about the importance of the role of culture within the context of teaching and learning the students’ content area garnered the following responses: 47.4% of the students considered the role of culture in their classroom to be essential, 36.8% of the students believed that culture plays an important role in the classroom, 10.5% of the students believed that the role of culture is somewhat important within the instructional milieu, and 5.3% of the students perceived culture as an unimportant aspect of teaching and learning within their content area. Those respondents who perceived the role of culture to be essential in teaching and learning of their content area offered such justifications for their responses as the societal diversity that influences people’s values and beliefs, the fact that every individual has a cultural background, the capacity of culture in broadening students’ learning abilities and opening their

537

minds, the importance of culture in the delivery of specific instructional content, and the potential of culture to set the following: An ideological precedent for the expected, accepted, and established norms in regards to the characteristic pedagogical beliefs and behaviors in which comprise both the teacher’s affinity and desire to convey information via teaching and the learner’s ability to acquire information via learning, respectively. (P11) According to another student, Culture influences the importance that teachers and students place on different pedagogical techniques such as discovery learning and lecturing. Culture also influences the emphasis placed on learning techniques such as route memorization, critical thinking and problem solving. Culture also impacts the expectations teachers have of students in the classroom and the expectation students have of teachers. Thus, a student’s learning style and a teacher’s teaching style are often derived from their cultural background. Therefore, culture plays an integral role in the student–teacher relationship and without an understanding of the cultural background of both the student and the teacher physical sciences subject matter cannot be effectively taught and learning cannot occur. (P16) Responses to the survey also pointed to the links among language, culture, and learning: Language is the vehicle in which all communication of information and conveyance of culture is instilled and shared 538

amongst teacher and learners alike… without language, learning is likely non-existent. (P11) Among the student-teachers who perceived the role of culture as important in their content area instruction, the comments indicated that culture was considered to be instrumental when responding to student diversity in the classroom, employing language—an integral part of culture—that is also a predominant means of teaching and learning, and being flexible in teaching methods to make connections to students’ cultures. Quotes from the following students highlight their reasons for viewing culture as important in teaching their subject area. One student wrote: I feel that culture will play a very important role since there is a good chance that the students in the shop class [Career and Technology Studies] will be from all different kinds of backgrounds and culture. So culture is very important because it will help to cater to the diversity of students in class. (P9) Another stated: I feel it is important for the teacher to be flexible in the teaching methods and allow students to make connections to their own cultures when learning the subject. (P20) Those who responded that the role of culture in their teaching is somewhat important believed that although culture plays a role in “how students will receive information” and “how they choose to interpret information,” their subject area “transcends all cultures.” Another student from this group stated:

539

Business electives at the high school level don’t have subject matter that is affected by culture, therefore culture is not at the forefront of importance in delivering the appropriate material in a way that is understood by all students. However, on the flip side of the coin, culture is still relevant to CTS [Career and Technology Studies], as all students in the classroom need to feel welcome, safe, and valued in the classroom. It is always important for teachers to factor in cultural differences of students in the learning environment to ensure all student needs are met. (P6) The study participants who did not consider the role of culture to be important in their teaching did not see how culture was connected to their content area: Chemistry as a discipline, at least in secondary school, does not have the same stigmas attached to it as does physics and biology. Especially in terms of trying to decipher our human, or our planet’s origins. Chemistry in secondary school, as it focuses on observable, noticable reactions, I feel easily maintains a strong separation from cultural or religious biases. (P8)

Final Meta-Reflection The final reflections completed at the end of the course were analyzed to determine the student-teachers’ perceptions of the impact of the course and their own development with respect to intercultural awareness and competence. The student-teachers’ reflections suggest that an important effect of the course was in raising their awareness of cultural differences and similarities in the classroom, along with the need to take diversity into account when planning for 540

teaching. Although the degree to which they believed their views had changed varied among the student-teachers, all of them indicated that their awareness had increased. For example, one student wrote: I have become more aware of teaching methods, learning attitudes and schooling practices that are vastly different depending on the culture of origin.… I hope to make my classroom a welcoming and diverse atmosphere that will be accepting and accommodating to every student. (P1) Similarly, another student-teacher stated: I have become more aware of ELLs and the problems they may face in the classroom as well as cultural differences that may result in different learning experiences. (P2) The same student-teacher added: I also realized how much of a role culture plays and how cultural differences can create problems in the classroom. Some of the difficulties I envision when I think about balancing content, culture, and language instruction in my class are a lack of support for ELL students, having difficulties understanding cultural differences, and covering the required content in a way that is meaningful to students who may not fully understand English. I believe that by being open to cultural differences, teachers can overcome some of these difficulties and gain the trust and cooperation of ELL students. (P2) For some students, the development of their awareness and understanding represented an important shift in their thinking 541

about teaching. In some subject areas, such as sciences and career and technology studies (trades), student-teachers did not initially see the relevance of language and culture for their teaching. For example, one student wrote: I came into this course thinking that there is no way any of this will apply to me or my major subject area. I did not think that I would be able to integrate any of the language, literacy, or culture into my lesson plans, plus I did not think it was even relevant. Well, after this intensive learning experience, my views are still the same in some areas, but for the most part my views have been changed. I feel like I have a much clearer understanding of how language, literacy, and culture can be related specifically to my subject area. (P9) Another student described similar difficulty in grasping the possibility of incorporating cultural learning opportunities into the teaching of her curricular subject area: As I look back on my original reflections at the beginning of this course I see that I could not even imagine including the development of inter-cultural sensitivity into my curriculum. Now I can envision integrating terminology specific to my discipline and cultural awareness.… The knowledge, awareness and responsibility of including language and cultural immersion in every subject for the benefit of all students is a lesson I will… embrace in my own teaching. (P3) Although the course fostered a considerable shift in the beliefs of some student-teachers, the impact was more subtle for others. Nonetheless, even the latter pointed out ways in

542

which their awareness had increased. For example, one student stated: I would not say my views have changed dramatically over the course of the term. I did garner a more appreciative understanding of the difficulties of ELLs whether native English speakers with poor literacy skills or immigrant students. Additionally the course made me look more closely at the cultural elements of teaching, and the impact this has on student learning. (P8) The student-teachers’ reflections also indicate that an increased awareness of student differences is but an initial step towards teaching effectively in culturally and linguistically diverse schools. As stated by one student-teacher: This course made me aware of the complexities of classroom diversity by understanding the linguistic and cultural differences of students.… [But] I still feel that it is not an easy task for teachers to take into account the cultural aspects of all ELLs in the classroom. (P4) One way in which novice teachers can begin to meet the challenges of this difficult task is to draw from their own intercultural competence to plan for teaching that will assist secondary-level students in developing intercultural understanding within the context of the various school subject areas. Every classroom possesses a diverse group of students with differing cultural perspectives, I hope to take advantage of these different perspectives to foster development of 543

intercultural competencies within my students through collaborative group work centered around achieving a content related task. My own intercultural competence will enable me to best orient the learning environment to promote effective use of collaborative group work and other instructional activities to encourage the achievement of content, cultural, social and linguistic objectives. (P16) This statement points to the link between developing intercultural understanding in teacher education and the broader aim of preparing future generations to thrive in culturally diverse societies.

Discussion The triangulated analysis of the research findings points to some consistent tendencies that emerged in the study. Based on the IDI results, the minimization orientation of the group of student-teachers suggests that these individuals are likely to support efforts of building understanding and awareness of cultural differences and commonalities within the school environment. These efforts, however, may not always be successful due to the group’s “blind spot”—the lack of attention to cultural differences, which can result in an excessive projection of personal cultural perceptions onto others when establishing common goals, policies, and practices within the school environment. On the other hand, adherence to the principles of inclusive, multicultural communities, particularly around issues of equal treatment and tolerance of cultural differences, would be one of the main characteristics of this group of study participants, based on their orientation of minimization. Additional traits

544

associated with minimization are difficulties with decision-making and problem-solving goals in situations where cultural differences pose challenges and where creative solutions based on the value of cultural diversity are needed. Moreover, the group profile results suggest that the future teachers in this study are likely to struggle when identifying interculturally-adaptive policies and practices that can guide common efforts across cultural differences. The minimization orientation found in this study corresponds with the findings of previous research. Other studies that used the IDI in educational settings have found the minimization worldview to be predominant among educators (e.g., DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Westrick & Yuen, 2007). Furthermore, research that did not specifically involve the IDI described teacher perspectives that closely match the characteristics associated with minimization (e.g., Kubota, 2004). This trend may be partially explained by the emphasis in many educational systems on instructional approaches that focus on intercultural similarities, while avoiding a focus on intercultural differences, which is seen as potentially resulting in disharmony. The trailing orientation of polarization identified in the pre-test represents a secondary tendency in the group of student-teachers. This finding suggests that, at the beginning of the course instruction, a substantial number of participants viewed cultural differences in dichotomized manner, associated with either defense (an “us” and “them” view of cultural differences in which there is an uncritical orientation towards one’s own cultural values and practices and an overly critical orientation towards the cultural values and practices of others), or reversal (also an “us” and “them” view of cultural differences but, in this case, the criticism of cultural 545

differences is directed to one’s own culture and accompanied by an uncritical perception of another culture). The trailing orientation was not identified during the post-test, indicating that the developmental level of some of the student-teachers had shifted away from polarizing tendencies towards minimization, which is associated with an emphasis on cross-cultural commonality. The research findings from all three categories of data suggest that the course content had an impact on the student-teachers’ perceptions regarding the importance of culture and intercultural competence in their content area classroom. The IDI results suggest that greater shifts towards intercultural orientations occurred among those students who exhibited monocultural mindsets at the beginning of the course instruction. Less intercultural development was traced within ethnorelative stages, and this finding suggests that more focused, in-depth, and long-term instruction may be necessary for individuals to advance within the further stages of intercultural development. The limitations of this course, which included a short timeframe and a large class size, did not allow for a more focused and individualized teaching approach. A comparison of the introductory surveys and final meta-reflections also pointed to the impact of the course with respect to the student-teachers’ perspectives on the value of linguo-cultural teaching in the delivery of their content area. Although most of the student-teachers showed at least some awareness of the importance of culture in teaching, some of them were uncertain about the links with their particular subject area. In a number of cases, these uncertainties persisted at the end of the course despite a focus 546

in the course on linking cultural learning with the curricular content of all school subject areas. Throughout the course, students were offered many examples of the connection, and one of the course assignments required them to develop their own examples of incorporating culture into their own future teaching in their particular discipline. The fact that some were still not convinced of the possibility or desirability of addressing culture across the curriculum suggests that student-teachers’ understandings of the subject matter they will teach can be highly resistant to change. In their final meta-reflections, the pre-service teachers consistently reported an increase in their intercultural awareness and their understanding of the challenges faced by students in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. This finding points to the potential for some degree of heightened awareness despite the pedagogical limitations of a large-class format, such as the focus on presenting and discussing information in the absence of direct intercultural experience. Examples of the sort of informational content that may have helped raise the student-teachers’ awareness of learner challenges include the comparison of drop-out rates for ELLs and native speakers of English, statistical links between cultural ethnicity and socioeconomic status, as well as Short and Fitzsimmons’ (2007) notion of “double the work,” which is the idea that ELLs have to learn school subjects at the same time they are still acquiring the language of instruction. Data from the final meta-reflections also indicate that some of the pre-service teachers considered themselves to have gained a greater understanding of instructional tools and approaches that they can use to raise their own future students’ intercultural awareness. Examples of tools and approaches that were addressed in the course 547

include reflecting on one’s own culture as a starting point for understanding other cultures (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2010) and using the IDI-based instructional sequence developed by Bennett et al. (2003).

Conclusion This research examined the dynamics of the development of intercultural competence among a group of student-teachers from various content areas within the context of an undergraduate teacher education course on language, literacy, and culture. The qualitative and quantitative results of the study point to an increased level of intercultural understanding among the pre-service teachers, particularly those who entered the course with monocultural mindsets. A possible explanation for this finding is that individuals who are no longer in a monocultural stage of development, and who therefore conceptualize differences in intercultural terms, might require more time and, more importantly, a greater amount of focused instruction to move further through the IDI continuum. The results also indicate a heightened awareness of the pedagogical value of linguo-cultural instruction in content areas, as well as approaches for carrying it out. Additional research would be useful for examining more closely the ways in which specific content and instructional methods promote higher levels of intercultural competence in both teacher education and K–12 content area classroom. Furthermore, it would be useful to explore how instruction can be diversified and tailored to various levels of intercultural competence among content area teachers in order to develop effective approaches for further broadening

548

mindsets that already exhibit a high level of intercultural awareness.

References Abbott, M., Dunn, W., & Aberdeen, T. (2012). A boundary-spanning ESL teacher education project: Connecting campus learning to in-service teacher needs. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 3–16. Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2010). Here comes everyone: Teaching in the inter-cultural classroom. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Teachers’ Association. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2007). Urgent but overlooked: The literacy crisis among adolescent English language learners. Washington, DC. Bennett, J.M., Bennett, M.J., & Allen, W. (2003). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In D.L. Lange & M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core (pp. 237–270). Greenwich: IAP. Bennett, M.J. (1986). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of inter-cultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 27–70). New York: University Press of America. Bennett, M.J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M.

549

Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Curtin, E.M. (2009). Practical strategies for teaching English language learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. DeJaeghere, J.G., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Development of intercultural competence among U.S. American teachers: Professional development factors that enhance competence. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 255–268. Early, M. (2001). Language and content in social practice: A case study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 156–179. Echevarría, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: How do teachers help English language learners? Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195–210. Eola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence development in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 454–478. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W.M., & Christian, D. (2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students at Risk, 10(4), 363–385. Hammer, M.R. (2009). The Intercultural Development Inventory. In M.A. Mood-ian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership

550

and intercultural competence (pp. 203– 218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York: State University of New York Press. Hoffman, L., & Sable, J. (2006). Public elementary and secondary students, staff, schools, and school districts: School year 2003–2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 30–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lee, L. (2011). Blogging: Promoting learner autonomy and intercultural competence through study abroad. Language Learning & Technology 15(3), 87–109. Levine, L.N., & McCloskey, M.L. (2009). Teaching learners of English in mainstream classrooms (K–8): One class, many paths. Boston: Pearson. Müller-Jacquier, B. (2004). Interkulturelle Didaktik. [Intercultural didactic]. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 303–307). London: Routledge. Paige, R.M., Jorstadt, H.L., Siaya, L., Klein, F., & Colby, J. (2003). Culture learning in language education: A review of the literature. In D.L. Lange & R.M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core (pp. 173–236). Greenwich: IAP.

551

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Statistics Canada. (2005). Ottawa: Education indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian education indicators. Program, Government of Canada. Statistics Canada. (2007). Ottawa: Education indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian education indicators. Program, Government of Canada. Trumbull, E., & Pacheco, M. (2005). Leading with diversity: Cultural competencies for teacher preparation and professional development (Part 1: Introduction). Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. Waxman, H.C., & Padrón, Y.N. (2002). Research-based teaching practices that improve the education of English language learners. In L. Minaya-Rowe (Ed.), Training and effective pedagogy in the context of student diversity (pp. 3–38). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Westrick, J.M., & Yuen, C.Y.M. (2007). The intercultural sensitivity of secondary teachers in Hong Kong: A comparative study with implications for professional development. Intercultural Education, 18(2), 129–145.

552

17 Chinese Sojourn Teachers’ Perceptions of and Experiences with K–12 U.S. Students Implications for Cross-Cultural Classroom Management Wenying Zhou

Introduction Chinese language education has grown significantly in the past decade throughout the U.S. with the rapid rise of China as an economic power and an increasing interest in learning Chinese in the U.S. (Yang, 2007). The growing interest in learning Chinese leads to an increasing demand for Chinese teachers in the U.S. schools. As a result, lots of Chinese sojourn teachers have been recruited to teach in the U.S. school districts. They teach for a period of one to three years and then return to China. It was reported (Press Release: College Board Chinese Guest Teacher Program. Online, 2011) that in 2006 alone, more than 100 teachers from China were placed in public and private K–12 schools across 31 states in the U.S. through the Chinese Guest Teacher Program, and nearly 500 teachers have been assigned to teach 553

in U.S. schools since then. Still more Chinese sojourn teachers are needed to fill the vacant teaching positions in the U.S. Cross-cultural teaching has recently drawn many researchers’ attention. There have existed some accounts of Western teachers’ teaching experiences in Eastern countries and also Eastern teachers’ teaching experiences in the West. Studies on the former have focused on the investigation of differences in classroom expectations, learning and teaching preferences between Eastern students and Western teachers (Chen & Cheng, 2010; Niehoff, Turnley, Yen, & Sheu, 2001), cultural awareness in the cross-cultural teaching (Hovater, 2007), sense of lost expertise and teaching stress in the new culture (Verity, 2000), and the utilization and transformation of the general knowledge base brought from the home culture (Gingerich, 2004). Studies on the latter mainly focus on non-native English speaking teachers (NNES) at the college level. The pros and cons of NNES teachers from students’ perspectives (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005), NNES teachers’ self-perceptions (Rajagopalan, 2005), their accent and English language proficiency in instruction, and NNES teacher training (Kamhi-Stein, 2009) have been widely examined. However, there is a lack of research that attempts to discover the common experiences that the sojourn teachers have in cross-cultural classroom management in the K–12 school settings. Hence, exploring their experiences and developing a theory that explains these common experiences is a needed addition to the literature. This study attempts to contribute towards filling this gap.

554

The Current Study This research was a qualitative study, using grounded theory, designed to investigate how the Chinese sojourn teachers described and perceived their classroom management experiences in the U.S. K–12 schools. Specifically, the research questions included: 1. What did the Chinese sojourn teachers say about their classroom management experiences in the U.S. schools and what common experiences did they have? 2. How did they perceive their classroom management as being influenced by their home cultures? 3. How did they perceive the possible changes? These questions pose significant meanings not only to the understanding of sojourn teachers’ cross-cultural classroom management, but also to the improvement of cross-cultural teacher training in terms of classroom management. In addition, the development of a theory that explains sojourn teachers’ common experiences in classroom management will be useful to both home country and host country educators. For the home country educators, the study can shed light on what professional development they can provide to align their sojourn teacher training internationally. For the host country educators, it will provide guidance as to what efforts they can make to turn the cross-cultural challenges into positive effects when developing a foreign language program.

555

Method The Role of the Researcher As a primary mentor of the Chinese sojourn teachers in the program, the researcher took an active part in their professional training and field instruction. She provided preand in- service Chinese immersion trainings annually to Chinese sojourn teachers. These experiences not only enabled her to have a thorough understanding of how these teachers worked and what they experienced in language instruction and classroom management in the U.S. schools, but also allowed for her physical and study entry into the research site.

The Participants Two groups of Chinese sojourn teachers participated in this study. This was a convenient sample because both groups were recruited from China to work as full-time teachers to teach Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) in the U.S. K–12 schools. The first group consisted of six participants who worked in the U.S. for the 2007–09 school years. The second group contained 22 such teachers who started their cross-cultural teaching in 2010. Within these two groups, twenty-six of the participants were females and two were males. All were native Chinese, grew up and obtained their bachelor’s degrees in China. Among them, eighteen majored in CFL, eight in ESL, one in international culture exchange, and one in comparative studies on literature. Sixteen of them were assigned to teach elementary levels only, and 12 teach secondary or both secondary and elementary grades. Only 556

four of them had three to seven years’ teaching experiences in China, but none of them had had any cross-cultural teaching experiences. By the time the research was conducted, all of them had had one year’s Chinese teaching experience in the U.S.

Data Collection Three separate data sources were gathered. First, the participants’ weekly blog reflections were reviewed and categorized. In the blog writings, the teachers wrote about their experiences in the U.S. schools during the previous week. These written reflections were reviewed and collected once a week for the whole school year. The data gained were used to develop the interview questions found in the appendix. A second source of the data was individual interviews, conducted at the end of the first year of their teaching in the U.S. after their working hours. The participants were given approximately an hour to answer the open-ended research questions. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. A third source of data consisted of the researcher’s bi-weekly onsite observation of some participants’ classroom instruction and review of other participants’ video recordings of their teaching. Classroom observations were conducted as part of the researcher’s field instruction, and the video recordings were submitted by the participants to the field instructors as course assignments. They were only used as a way to help validate the participants’ responses in the interviews and their descriptions in the blog writings.

557

Data Analysis The data were analyzed through three types of coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). First, the data collected from the participants’ weekly blog writings were reviewed and open-coded. Next, they were used to generate questions for the individual interviews. At the end of the school year, the individual interviews were conducted and the responses were transcribed. Then axial coding was applied to develop categories and form a theoretical framework that described the participants’ cross-cultural experiences in classroom management. Finally, selective coding was used to validate the relationships between the categories.

Analysis and Results Open Coding Open coding of the data developed 14 categories that showed the participants’ common experiences. Table 17.1 summarized the findings, and related analysis occurred after the table. All names used next (Sarah, Kathy, Lisa, Lily, Susan, Rachel, and Fillips) were pseudonyms. Sarah, Kathy, and Susan were elementary CFL teachers. Rachel and Fillips taught secondary students. Lisa and Lily taught both elementary and secondary levels. All of the participants reported that classroom management was very difficult. “Huge challenge” and “big problem” were

558

the words that were frequently used in the participants’ blog reflections. The major challenges they mentioned Table 17.1 Emerging Categories

ranged from establishing routines and procedures to dealing with individual difficult students. Inexperience was one major contributor. The data revealed that the participants were inexperienced in terms of teaching profession, the U.S. culture, management strategies, and knowledge of children. Eighty-six percent of the participants had no teaching experiences before they came to the U.S., so they lacked the professional skills to manage the students. Additionally, lacking pre-service training in classroom management, they did not know how to train or discipline the students. Sarah recalled: “I don’t know how to deal with the misbehaving

559

kids. I don’t want to make them feel bad, but I don’t know how to make them get some punishments they deserve so that they will learn to behave.” Her struggling with what to do was not alone. Even those who had three to seven years’ teaching experiences in China reported that they had no idea how to deal with the children when “neither praises nor punishment worked for them.” On the other hand, as they were new to the U.S. culture, they were afraid that tough discipline would stun or scare the students away from their Chinese classes. “I was concerned that they would not like to come to my class,” Kathy reflected. Inexperience was also related to the participants’ lack of knowledge of K–12 students. This included not understanding students’ behaviors and their underlying intentions. Take Lisa’s experience as an example. “A girl said her hand hurt and she needed a bandage. I didn’t find any cuts on her hand, but I gave her one. Kids asked me for bandages for various reasons that day. I couldn’t understand why.” As inexperienced teachers who did not know much about how to deal with children in general, the participants were particularly frustrated by some extremely problematic children, some of whom were diagnosed with ADHD. Rachel reported: “I don’t know how to deal with her when she acted up in front of the whole class.” Lily described a typical situation, “Most of my kids follow directions very well. However, once he comes in, he will lead a riot by keeping bothering other kids and making noises.” All the participants reported that these children had virtually little self-control, and they lacked effective strategies to deal with them.

560

When mentioning their impressions of the U.S. students, all participants reported that the U.S. students were not afraid of teachers and didn’t obey disciplines as much as Chinese counterparts. Lisa described: “I found that it is so hard to have my students submit homework on time. They have all kinds of excuses, like ‘I just had no time!’, ‘We had a party last night!’ and so on.” Susan shared similar experience: “They were not well-behaved and obedient as Chinese students. They would not be quiet even when I asked them to do so…. They are self-centered, talkative and active.” Such descriptions implied that the participants’ classroom management was inevitably affected by how they were educated in China and they naturally brought their Chinese values, expectations, and practices to the U.S. classrooms, which sometimes clashed with the U.S. school ones. For example, “authority” was a frequently mentioned word in the blog writings, and the participants all expressed that they did not receive much authority as they had expected. In China, due to the influence of the Confucian hierarchical culture, Chinese teachers are placed in an authoritative position and respected at all times. However, the participants were disappointed by the little attention and respect they received from the U.S. students. And they oftentimes had no repertoire of management strategies to call upon to handle those who didn’t follow instructions. Kathy wrote: “Chinese students are more submissive than American students, so it is sort of unpredictable to me when confronting the students who reject to cooperate.” To make the U.S. students cooperate, the participants tended to exercise their authoritative power or rely more on punishments. Punishments included writing the misbehaving students’ names on the blackboard, scolding them, and having 561

them stand in the back of the classroom for a certain period of time. In addition to negative reinforcements, the data showed that most participants, if not all, tended to depend a lot on non-verbal cues as main classroom management strategies such as “staring at students,” “showing anger,” and “pausing instruction.” In China, as teachers have the authoritative power, non-verbal cues can send a better message to the students that they should stop misbehaviors and listen up to the teachers, and they tend to work better than words. Unfortunately, however, the U.S. students could not interpret the meaning of this message, which made the Chinese sojourn teachers very frustrated. Lily reported: “One day, the students got wild. I had to stop teaching. Just then a girl stood up and said ‘Guys, the teacher is not teaching now, how about I teach you guys?’ I was astonished.” Regardless of some cultural clashes, the participants all stated that the impacts of their home culture on their classroom management were both positive and negative. More than one third of the participants reported that they had been insisting on the common Chinese practice of bowing and greeting to the students and having them bow and greet back at the beginning and end of classes. Talking about the positive impacts, Fillips analyzed: “I believe this serves as a reminder for the students that the class has officially started or ended.” In terms of negative impacts, all the participants reported that a teacher-centered management style seemed inappropriate in the U.S. classrooms. When talking about improving their management effects, they all thought it better to play up the strengths and avoid the weaknesses of the home cultural influence. It was proposed that doing as the Romans do by shifting more towards a student-centered management style to better match the U.S. students’ characteristics should be a 562

wise choice. This included employing the strategies which had been proved effective in the U.S. schools, such as training the students to behave rather than simply demanding respect and obedience. Eighty percent of the participants mentioned that “language” was a factor contributing to the ineffective communication with the students, although all of them had relatively strong listening and speaking skills in both Chinese and English. Two possible reasons accounted for their ineffective communication with the students. First, as non-native speakers, they tended to use the words that the U.S. students were not accustomed to, which “sounded too long, inaccurate and ineffective though grammatically correct,” as analyzed by Sarah in her blog reflection. Second, the English they learned in China was very formal and they had never learned or been exposed to any children’s colloquial English before. For example, “go to the bathroom” was a phrase they understood; however, “go pee-pee” sounded unfamiliar. Lily wrote in her reflection: “The first time I heard ‘go potty’, I had thought she was saying that she wanted to go to a party. When another kid nearby said: ‘I want to use it, too’, I became totally lost.” The data also found that children were partially held accountable for the miscommunication. As they were at the stage of acquiring and developing their native language, elementary children might not be able to utter certain sounds as accurately as adults, which caused the teachers’ misunderstanding. Rachel reported: “When I asked a kid what he ate for lunch, he said ‘spetti’. I didn’t figure it out until a western teacher told me it was ‘spaghetti.’” Shelly added that children’s English was particularly hard to understand when

563

they were murmuring, sobbing while talking, screaming or tattling while crying, talking fast, or arguing fiercely.

Axial and Selective Coding After combining their common experiences and analyzing the previously-mentioned 14 categories from open coding, the axial coding found five main categories: challenges in classroom management, communication barriers, being inexperienced (newness), home culture influence (Chineseness), and adaptations. Challenges in Classroom Management The participants reported that classroom management was a big challenge in their first year’s cross-cultural teaching in the U.S. The difficulties they encountered included, but were not limited to, being unable to be multi-tasked, having no idea of setting up rules and routines at the beginning of the school year, ignoring establishing procedures, being inconsistent and infirm in management, not knowing how to deal with misbehaving students, balancing meeting individual students’ needs and managing the whole class, and handling some special students such as talkative and ADHD ones. Communication Barriers The participants seemed to have communication problems with the students. The data showed that due to the problems of their own use of English and comprehension of the students’ colloquial English, their communication of expectations seemed ineffective and sometimes confusing. In

564

addition, their preference to the use of non-verbal cues also resulted in miscommunication between them and the U.S. students.

Figure 17.1 Connections between factors of holding onto the home cultural expectations and management strategies. Being Inexperienced (Newness) Being inexperienced was common among the participants. The following factors were major contributors: being new to the teaching profession and the U.S. culture, lack of management strategies, and lack of knowledge of students. Lack of strategies and lack of knowledge of students resulted from their newness to the teaching profession. Figure 17.1 shows their connections.

565

Figure 17.2 Connections between factors of holding onto the home cultural expectations and management strategies.

Home Cultural Influence (Chineseness) The participants’ home culture (Chineseness) resulted in their holding on to the home cultural expectations and management strategies. Their holding on to the home cultural expectations contributed to their misconceptions of the U.S. students and their feelings of a lack of authority and respect. And their holding on to the home cultural management strategies led to their inclination to the use of negative reinforcement and non-verbal cues as major strategies. Figure 17.2 shows the connections. Proposed Adaptations The participants showed an open attitude towards learning new classroom management skills from the U.S. colleagues. The main reason was that they realized that many of the 566

strategies they brought from China failed to work whereas the strategies they adopted from the U.S. teachers proved to be effective. However, they also expressed their idea of incorporating some Chinese elements because it would be a beneficial experience for the U.S. students to be exposed to some authentic Chinese culture.

Theoretical Framework and Selective Coding Based on the earlier analyses and results, a diagram of the theory was created in Figure 17.3. The theory suggested that the Chinese sojourn teachers’ cross-cultural teaching created challenges in their classroom management of the U.S. students due to the influence of their home culture (Chineseness), communication barriers, and inexperience in the profession and the U.S. culture (newness). The three factors intervened to add to the difficulty of the Chinese sojourn teachers’ classroom management in their cross-cultural teaching. To improve the situation, the theory proposed learning new strategies and making adjustments.

Figure 17.3 Theoretical framework. There has been some research on cross-cultural teaching experiences (Hovater, 2007; Sahin, 2008) with the results

567

showing that cross-cultural experiences in general positively influence the teachers’ professional and personal development and increase their cultural awareness (Zhang, 2004). However, few studies have been designed to examine the classroom management challenges in cross-cultural teaching. This study implies that sojourn teachers encounter classroom management challenges in their cross-cultural teaching, especially when the two cultures are very dissimilar. Communication is the first barrier they need to overcome. The data revealed that it was an important factor that posed a great challenge in the participants’ communication with the students. This is consistent with findings of some other research on cross-cultural teaching. Research (Hovater, 2007; Voltz, Brazil, & Scott, 2003) showed that cross-cultural teaching increased the likelihood that misreading behaviors, different expectations, or miscommunication would occur due to culturally and linguistically different communication patterns. Myles, Cheng, and Wang (2006) found similar results that the non-native teachers’ English accent and proficiency could add to the difficulty of the students’ comprehension and could be disadvantageous for their relationship establishment. In addition to correspondence with the research findings that miscommunication was caused by the teachers, this study contributed to the literature by indicating that there were also native students’ problems and that the sojourn teachers’ cultural preferences of non-verbal cues added barriers to the communication with and understanding of their students, thus resulting in management challenges. Newness is the second factor that affects cross-cultural classroom management. Numerous studies on Western 568

beginning teachers (e.g., Britton, Paine, & Raizen, 1999; Veenman, 1984) have revealed that classroom management is the greatest challenge they perceive. In contrast, according to the findings of Eastern researchers (Ding, Li, Li, & Kulm, 2008; Shen et al., 2009), classroom management is generally not a problem in China. In the analysis of the differences, Ding et al. (2008) explained that the Confucian heritage that aimed to establish a stable social order with a collectivist attitude contributed to the students’ exhibiting good behaviors in the classroom. This cultural difference partially explained why the Chinese sojourn teachers encountered challenges in cross-cultural classroom management. In addition, this study showed that the sojourn teachers’ being new to the Western educational system and even new to the teaching profession contributed greatly to their lack of management strategies and lack of knowledge of the host country’s students, resulting in ineffective classroom management. Chineseness is the third main contributor to the sojourn teachers’ challenges of management in the U.S. classrooms. The data showed that the Chinese sojourn teachers brought the management styles and approaches that they were familiar with from their home culture to the U.S. While managing the U.S. students, they tended to approach the situation with their home cultural expectations and exhibit a teacher-centered management style due to the influence of the home culture, which, on the one hand, affected their management effects; and, on the other hand, created some barriers to their learning of new approaches. This is supported by some research findings (Al-Issa, 2008; Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, & Curran, 2004) that the cultural differences are likely to add to the complicacy and

569

difficulty of classroom management when the two distinct cultures are forced to interact constantly on a daily basis. The failure of the Chinese sojourn teachers’ teacher-centered management in the U.S. classrooms resulted in their noticing of their cultural practices in the U.S. and their realization that many classroom techniques which worked well in a Chinese classroom were not applicable to the U.S., which worked as a catalyst that forced them to make changes. According to Falconer (2003), willingness to accept the differences and change accordingly is necessary in cross-cultural experiences. This study found that when the sojourn teachers started to adjust and learn strategies from their Western partners, their management was generally improved. This was also supported by a cross-cultural study by Hofstede (1986) who found that a Dutch teacher was able to bridge the cross-cultural teaching gap after applying more structure in his classroom management for a group of Asian students, which was considered inappropriate in the standards of his native culture. Research on culturally responsive education (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Mitchell, 1998) also demonstrated that African American teachers tended to align their professional practices with their students’ culture, resulting in effective classroom management. This study also suggests that it is necessary for the sojourn teachers to adjust their management style to match the host culture for the purpose of managing the students more effectively. Cross-cultural teaching provides such an opportunity for them to promote their management skills. It also brings the U.S. students the benefits of interacting with different classroom management practices. That’s why the last part of the theory suggests that challenges lead to possible 570

changes that take into consideration both the effective management strategies that work in the host culture and the advantageous elements of the home culture. This corresponds with McLean’s research finding (2007) that “blending teacher-centered classroom management into the student-centered environment in the United States seems to be the key to providing a successful learning experience for the students” (p. 22).

Discussions and Conclusion The data from the teachers’ blog writings indicated that the Chinese sojourn teachers’ cross-cultural classroom management in the U.S. schools proved to be challenging in many ways. Three main factors were described: communication barrier, newness, and Chineseness. It was these factors that intertwined in ways that resulted in the challenges of their classroom management in the U.S. schools. The challenges led them to see the influence of their home culture on their management styles and approaches. To improve the management effects, they had to adapt to a different management style that worked well in the U.S. schools. This suggested that culture, in particular, cultural differences, played a significant role in the cross-cultural classroom management: (1) it affected the expectations the sojourn teachers had for the host country’s students; (2) it affected the management styles they preferred when dealing with the students; (3) it affected the approaches/strategies they chose to use when handling misbehaviors; (4) it affected the language they used to communicate with the students; (5) it caused difficulties in many aspects of classroom 571

management; and (6) it forced the teachers to make changes to adapt to the host culture’s values and practices. Results from the individual interviews and the observations of the participants’ classroom teaching and video recordings were consistent with these findings. The theoretical framework, derived from the experiences of the Chinese sojourn teachers in this study, supports the literature which suggests that culture shapes beliefs about educational practices and that classroom management is primarily reflective of the cultural values of the school and the teachers (Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull, 2008; Weinstein et al., 2004). Researchers (Britton et al., 1999; Ding et al., 2008) have found that teachers from different cultures have different perceptions about classroom management. They tend to have different classroom expectations of students (Niehoff, Turnley, Yen, & Sheu, 2001) and they prefer different management styles (Baumrind, 1971). Thus, in this case of cross-cultural classroom management, it was natural that the sojourn teachers brought their Chinese cultural expectations and practices to the U.S. classrooms, as their thinking had been conditioned by their years of education in China in a culturally rich Chinese environment and they had little knowledge of the U.S. classroom practices. It was only through their cross-cultural teaching experiences that they realized that some management approaches that worked well in China did not work well in the U.S. and that it was necessary to make some changes. They started to learn about the U.S. culture’s value systems, reflect upon their own classroom practices, learn from the U.S. teachers to re-construct their knowledge and skills, and then redesign their classroom organization and management. Although the participants had to suppress their home cultural practices, 572

they considered it worthwhile to make adjustments because it did result in more fruitful teaching and effective management. To have the U.S. students experience some cultural differences, they regarded it necessary to incorporate some authentic Chinese practices. In this regard, it is reasonable to claim that cultural intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003), the ability to know the similarities and differences between the home and host cultures and to modify some expectations/ behaviors to function effectively in the host culture, would ensure successful cross-cultural classroom management. It is also necessary to understand their cultural values that influence how the host country’s students behave in the classrooms. To minimize the difficulties in classroom management, it is important for the sojourn teachers to learn some effective strategies from the host culture’s teachers. On the other hand, introducing some home country’s authentic cultural practices would benefit students. It is hoped that the developed theory from this study helps identify the challenges that the sojourn teachers encountered in their cross-cultural classroom management, thereby adding to and supporting the existing literature by proposing a direction of possible solutions. Given the fact that there is recently a worldwide boom in learning CFL and more and more Chinese sojourn teachers are sent to other countries to teach CFL, this study provides useful information about cross-cultural teacher training with regard to classroom management internationally. Based on the research findings, the study calls for the following suggestions. First, sojourn teachers should realize that it is very likely that they will encounter classroom management challenges while teaching in a dissimilar culture at K–12 school settings. Second, their home culture may influence the 573

effects of their cross-cultural management, but they need to adjust their management styles and learn new approaches to match those of the host culture. Third, there should be pre-service training for sojourn teachers to foster their awareness of the cultural differences in classroom management; a better understanding of the host country’s students, management styles, approaches, and use of language in management; and areas of potential conflicts.

Limitations and Future Directions This study has delimitations in that it is limited to the context of Chinese sojourn teachers’ cross-cultural teaching in the U.S. The results may vary if it is replicated in two other different cultural settings. The descriptions presented in the study are based on a limited sample with only 28 Chinese sojourn teachers. It is very likely that one may come to different findings if a larger sample of sojourn teachers is examined from other cultures. In addition, this study relies heavily on qualitative research methods and findings of this study are based solely on the sojourn teachers’ experiences and the researcher’s interpretations, which limits its potential generalization. Future research should develop a more comprehensive understanding of cross-cultural classroom management based on the issues raised in this study. For example, including students’ perceptions of the sojourn teachers’ cross-cultural classroom management may further enhance the understanding. Examining the phenomenon from the perspective of a U.S. researcher or in a quantitative approach

574

may also promote the understanding. Larger sample sizes that include teachers from different cultures should be used.

Appendix: Questions

Derived

Interview

1. How was your classroom management in the U.S. classrooms in the past one year? Can you share one or two stories? 2. What is your general impression of the U.S. students? 3. What were your expectations on your U.S. students’ classroom behavior? 4. Have you had any difficulties communicating with your students? 5. Do you think your home culture affects your classroom management? If so, how? 6. What are some things that you have learned about classroom management in the U.S.?

References Al-Issa, A. (2008). When the West teaches the East: Towards a model for analyzing classroom cultural conflict. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany. http://www.allacademic.com/ meta/p74661_index.html Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 1–103.

575

Britton, E., Paine, L., & Raizen, S. (1999). Middle grades mathematics and science teacher induction in selected countries: Preliminary findings. Washington, DC: National Center for Improving Science Education. Chen, C.W., & Cheng, Y. (2010). A case study on foreign English teachers’ challenges in Taiwanese elementary schools. System, 38, 41–49. Ding, M., Li, Y., Li, X., & Kulm, G. (2008). Chinese teachers’ perceptions of students’ classroom misbehavior. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 305–324. Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Falconer, T. (2003). These kids are so bright! Pre-service teachers’ insights and discoveries during a three-week student teaching practicum in Mexico. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Gingerich, R.R. (2004). Learning to teach: A study of teacher knowledge in English as a foreign language. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Iowa, IA. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

576

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301–320. Hovater, S.E. (2007). Developing cultural awareness: A grounded theory study of pre-service teachers’ field experiences in Taiwan. PhD Dissertation. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/14 Kamhi-Stein, L.D. (2009). Teacher preparation and non-native English-speaking educators. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 91–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2005). What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 217–242). New York: Springer. McLean, C.A. (2007). Establishing credibility in the multicultural classroom: When the instructor speaks with an accent. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 110, 15–24. Mitchell, A. (1998). African American teachers: Unique roles and universal lessons. Education and Urban Society, 31, 104–122. 577

Myles, J., Cheng, L., & Wang, H. (2006). Teaching in elementary school: Perceptions of foreign-trained teacher candidates on their teaching practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 233–245. Niehoff, B.P., Turnley, W.H., Yen, H.J.R., & Sheu, C. (2001). Exploring cultural differences in classroom expectations of students from the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 289–293. Press Release: College Board Chinese Guest Teacher Program. Online. (2011). College Board. http://www.iie.org/ en/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/ Press-Releases/2011/ 2011–01–07-Chinese-Guest-Teacher-Program Rajagopalan, K. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers of English and their anxieties: Ingredients for an experiment in action research. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 283–303). New York: Springer. Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Trumbull, E. (2008). Managing diverse classrooms: How to build on students’ cultural strengths. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Sahin, M. (2008). Cross-cultural experience in preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1777–1790. Shen, J., Zhang, N., Zhang, C., Caldarella, P., Richardson, M.J., & Shatzer, R.H. (2009). Chinese elementary school 578

teachers’ perceptions of students’ classroom behavior problems. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 187–201. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143–178. Verity, D. (2000). Side effects: The strategic development of professional satisfaction. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 179–197). New York: Oxford University Press. Voltz, D., Brazil, N., & Scott, R. (2003). Professional development for culturally responsive instruction: A promising practice for addressing the disproportionate representation of students of color in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 63–73. Weinstein, C.S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25–38. Yang, W. (2007). Chinese language maintenance: A study of Chinese-American parental perceptions and activities. Journal of Chinese Overseas, 3(2), 220–238. Zhang, L.J. (2004). Reforming a teacher education program for PRC EFL teachers in Singapore: Sociocultural considerations and curriculum evolution. International Journal of Educational Reform, 13, 223–252.

579

18 Desire and Desirability Perceptions of Needs in a Trans-National Language Teacher Education Program John Macalister The function of some professions is more obvious than others. Tell someone you work as an applied linguist, for example, and they may well look uncertain. But say you are a teacher educator, and there is no confusion, for teacher education has a fairly obvious purpose. It exists to make people better teachers than they would otherwise have been, whether preparing not-yet-teachers for their first teaching job or already-teachers to do their job in a slightly different, and presumably better, way. Teacher education programs, therefore, are change programs (Richardson, 1996, p. 102). The locus of change is increasingly seen to be teacher cognition, that “unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching—what teachers know, believe, and think” (Borg, 2003, p. 81). This interest in teacher cognition can be traced back to changes in thinking about the role of the teacher; from being viewed in passive terms, as transmitters of other people’s ideas working with “teacher proof materials” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988), teachers now tend to be seen as active participants in language learning and teaching (Freeman, 2002).

580

Teacher cognition is regarded as important because of its influence on classroom practice. Put simply, ‘erroneous’ teacher cognition may lead to ineffective classroom practice which may, in turn, impede effective learning. Although multiple factors inform and interact with teacher cognition (Macalister, 2010), the principal focus of teacher education is on just one of them—professional coursework, which equates with formal knowledge, and can be divided into content and pedagogical knowledge (Richardson, 1996). Although there are other ways of categorizing the foci of a teacher education course—Richards (1998), for example, distinguishes between content and process issues, and lists six dimensions of each—the content/pedagogical knowledge distinction is generally accepted as useful. In designing a teacher education course, consideration should be given to environmental factors, divided in one model of curriculum design as the teachers, the learners, and the situation (Nation & Macalister, 2010). Delivery of teacher education is typically conducted in a fairly homogenized setting. Participants are familiar with the same education system, may be members of the same society, and may share a first language or a nationality. But some teacher education programs, such as the one that is the focus of this chapter, introduce a trans-national element. This element may be included to act as a catalyst for change.

Trans-National Education Trans-national educational experiences are available in different forms for different types of learners. The secondary

581

school student who visits a target language country for 2 weeks and the PhD candidate who immerses herself for 3 years in a foreign language university both have trans-national educational experiences. They both experience education in a different country. The different experiences have different goals, but perhaps common to both is the expectation of some type of change that some authority has deemed desirable. Thus, for a New Zealand secondary student spending a fortnight in New Caledonia, the change may be affective; the student may be more motivated to communicate in French. For a Vietnamese PhD candidate coming to a New Zealand university the change may be cognitive; the candidate will deepen her individual, and expand our shared, knowledge in a particular area. In both cases the change is expected to come from the experience. However, change may not always be beneficial or appropriate. Green-holtz (2003), reflecting on the experiences of Japanese students who spend a year abroad in a Canadian university where individualism and critical thinking are encouraged, describes those who “mope around their home campus bewildered and bitter that their newly found ability to criticise and question is not considered praiseworthy in Japan” (Greenholtz, 2003, p. 129). They had embraced the change that their trans-national experience provided, but it was not appropriate for it had not prepared them “to take their places in society” (Greenholtz, 2003, p. 123). What they needed, Greenholtz suggests, were teachers “to mediate the onslaught of ideas and experiences by helping students to contextualise and honour their own cultural traditions” (Greenholtz, 2003, p. 129).

582

In language teacher education there is the suggestion that trainees are able to self-mediate because they have undergone an ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975). This means that pre-service teachers have had previous experience of an education system as learners, and this may influence their beliefs about the nature of teaching (if not the nature of learning). This ‘apprenticeship’ is not necessarily undertaken consciously, and the observation is almost certainly not critical; nevertheless, it is widely recognized as a potential influence on teacher cognition, although it may go under different names. Experience with schooling and instruction is identified as one of the three influences on beliefs by Richardson (1996), for example. This provides pre-service teachers with a lens for viewing the ideas they are presented with, a filter for sifting the appropriate from the inappropriate. It can, of course, both facilitate and impede the adoption of ideas. However, one way in which teacher education can effect change is by creating dissonance between the ‘apprenticeship of observation’ and the content of the professional coursework (cf. Richardson, 2003, p. 14). In trans-national language teacher education there is ample potential to create that dissonance, for trainees are likely to be presented with competing messages, and thus be required to make decisions about the appropriate and the inappropriate. The potential for competing messages is rooted in the various approaches that have been proposed for thinking about the English language and English language learning around the world. A particularly influential model for understanding English globally has been Kachru’s idea of the three circles (Kachru, 1985), with the inner consisting of countries where English is the native language, the outer countries where English operates as a second language, and the expanding 583

circle, countries in which English is learned and used as a foreign language. Within English language learning a powerful construct has been the distinction between the acronyms BANA and TESEP (Holliday, 1994), where BANA stands for the approach to language learning and teaching practised and promoted in Britain, Australasia, and North America, and TESEP for the approach found in tertiary, secondary, and primary sectors throughout the world. Their broad characteristics are shown in Table 18.1. These approaches are not geographically constrained, however. TESEP is practiced in BANA countries—Kachru’s inner circle—as well as the outer and expanding circle countries. Similarly, BANA practices can be found in otherwise TESEP environments, such as in the teaching at a private language provider. The distinction between BANA–TESEP is not unproblematic, of course, and has been misunderstood to some extent (Holliday, 2001). There are other possible ways of thinking about different approaches—these include the center–periphery distinction and the native versus non-native speaker debate (Holliday, 2001)—but no matter what terminology is employed, the issues they encompass remain current (Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam, 2012). Furthermore, what all have in common is that one component emanates from the inner circle, the other from the outer and expanding circles. A feature of the trans-national education experience is that learners move physically from one environment to another (from outer or emerging circle Table 18.1 Characteristics of BANA and TESEP Approaches (Holliday, 1994)

584

to inner, for example, or from inner to outer or emerging) with the expectation of some sort of change, as mentioned at the start of this section. The change may be in the form of knowledge transfer, although the appropriateness and effectiveness of trans-national knowledge transfer certainly has its critics. Kanu, for example, writing about expatriate advisers, comments unfavorably on “western universities transferring educational ideas and practices to the developing countries, often without taking into consideration” local factors (Kanu, 2005, p. 494). The message is that suiting the local context is key. The dilemmas facing non-native speaker teachers in the expanding circle have been discussed by Seidlhofer (1999), who argues against a simple transfer of ideas and approaches. Not only does she make a case for teachers deciding on what is context-appropriate, but she proposes a reconceptualization of the dichotomies in language teaching, so that being a non-native speaker is seen as an advantage. After all, “[m]ore important… than the ability to ‘get into the skin of the native speaker’ is the ability to ‘get into the skin of the foreign learner’” (Seidlhofer, 1999, p. 243). Pushing back against native-speaker-ism is, however, increasingly seen as a legitimate function in teacher education (Reis, 2011).

585

Nevertheless, despite the criticism and the cautions, the trans-national element in teacher education is valued because of its contributions to both professional and personal development, and cultural awareness. Sahin (2008), for example, describes the beneficial effects of a 2-month overseas internship experience on 26 pre-service teachers who spent 2 months in the U.S. For these students the trans-national experience contributed to the professional, personal, and cross-cultural changes that the teacher education program sought to make.

Context and Approach The focus of this chapter is on three groups of participants involved in a trans-national language teacher education program. Two of these groups are teacher educators, 16 in Malaysia and 6 in New Zealand. The largest group is a cohort of 60 Malaysian pre-service teachers whose teacher education program consists of roughly equal time spent in Malaysia and New Zealand (see Table 18.2). The program in New Zealand is primarily academic. Teaching experience is restricted to 3 weeks, with an emphasis on observation; there is only a limited amount of teaching practice during that time. In this respect it differs from the internship experience found in some trans-national programmes (e.g., Sahin, 2008), and is similar to a study abroad experience. Aspects of this language teacher education program have received attention elsewhere. Macalister (2011) investigated the approach taken to the imagined teaching of an informational text, and suggested that the BANA/

586

Table 18.2 Overview of Teacher Training Program Degree program structure • 2½ years in Malaysia (foundation + first year) • 2 years in a New Zealand or other foreign university • Final year in Malaysia TESEP distinction (Table 18.1) remained largely applicable to the two groups of teacher educators; grammar translation had, however, disappeared from the TESEP repertoire. Focusing on the pre-service teachers’ imagined teaching of the same text, and vocabulary teaching in particular, Macalister (2012) found that the pre-service teachers held beliefs that coincided to some extent with those of their trainers but most were not able to give effective expression to their beliefs when describing the imagined teaching, which suggested that the trainees’ primary requirement was for pedagogical knowledge. The question that this chapter addresses concerns the expectations of the teacher education program, particularly the New Zealand component, held by the three stakeholder groups. In this sense the chapter is essentially a form of needs analysis, looking at perceptions of necessities and wants— where necessities tell us what is necessary in the learners’ target situation, and wants what is wished for—that underpin the program’s goals. Such an analysis is useful for, as Greenholtz (2003, p. 129) reminds us, “internationalization is a fuzzy and largely unexamined concept.” Understanding the expectations of different stakeholder groups is one way of clarifying the purpose of the undertaking. Without a clear

587

understanding of the purpose, evaluating the program’s success becomes problematic. There were two main means of data collection (surveys and interviews) in the first phase of the study, but in this chapter only interview data is used. This data was gathered before the start of the teaching in New Zealand (Table 18.2). Twelve of the pre-service teachers, as well as all the teacher educators, volunteered for an interview. The interviews were coded qualitatively, with themes that emerged fitting into higher level categories (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 267). The categories relevant to this discussion are: • Content knowledge, or knowledge about the teaching subject, in this case English • Pedagogical knowledge, or how to teach English • Role of the teacher In the following sections, extracts from interviews are used to illustrate the categories and themes. Participants are identified by a letter code, to preserve anonymity, with ‘My’ signifying a Malaysian teacher educator, ‘S’ a Malaysian pre-service teacher, and ‘NZ’ a New Zealand-based teacher educator. JM is the interviewer, me, and questions asked are included so as not to obscure the role of the interviewer in the interviews.

Findings The six New Zealand-based teacher educators were all focused on pedagogical knowledge in their responses to a question along the lines of:

588

JM: What, what are your goals for them? When you’re teaching, what do you want them to take away from your teaching that they will use in the future? However, the emphasis in the responses did vary and was evenly divided between those who wanted trainees to understand an approach to teaching and those who wanted them to appreciate the principles they were applying in their teaching. The former is exemplified by the following response. NZD: Um, one thing is that language teaching is not about teaching language, so it’s not about teaching forms that have been learnt and drilled etc. etc. It’s about engaging learners with doing things with language and help building of course language through that. But I think it’s moving away from an approach that was driven by learning a set of rules or forms to an approach which is much more about what you do with language. By contrast, and as an example of the second group of responses, another participant had this to say: NZE: I’m not in favour of any particular approach to language teaching I’m actually opposed to it actually. Probably bitterly opposed if I can ever be bitterly opposed, but I just think in whatever you do you should be coming back to principles and things like that. Only one of these six participants explicitly included any other goal for the trainees, and that related to cross-cultural learning.

589

NZD: Um, the second thing I want them to go away with is a much broader view of, view of the world. So I want them to go back as more interesting people who, who bring their tastes of other cultures and other worlds into the classroom and with them as some of my teachers did, you had a sense of that richness, or sometimes even a slight exotic flavour teachers would bring to their classrooms, perhaps with their anecdotes of another world, or you know, another country, another life they’ve lived somewhere. The Malaysian pre-service teachers who volunteered for an interview were asked a similar type of question, along the lines of: JM: Ok, so now you’ve just arrived in New Zealand. You’ve been here less than a week. And you’re going to be here for two years. So what do you think you’re going to learn during your time here? The dominant response from these participants related to content knowledge, i.e., developing English language proficiency. Eight people mentioned this as a goal as their initial response, with a consistent emphasis on fluency development. Professional learning, or pedagogical knowledge, was only mentioned once as an initial response, although after further probing to ask about expectations from the university experience, professional learning received a total of four mentions. Both areas of knowledge are captured in the following extract. SJ: Well, first I hope that ah, I hope that my English can improve.

590

JM: Yep, yep. SJ: I’d like to talk like a kiwi. JM: Ok. SJ: Not so heavy, not such a heavy accent but still, you know because the, the, because of my first language sometimes the English comes a little bit slower. You know I try over the holidays to like think in English and we try to convert it back to some other languages but still it’s kind of slow, so I hope that studying in an English environment will improve my English skills, my speaking skills will improve greatly and um, other aspects would be um, of course the, how to teach, how to teach, how to understand people better, kids, and their culture. The one person whose initial response focused on pedagogical knowledge expressed it like this. SG: Maybe I, here it’s like a different country, they have a different system to teach children to learn language, so I just, I hope that when I’m here I can learn something new that I could use back in Malaysia to make the English learning style more interesting. It was also noteworthy that only one participant appeared to be considering the expectations of the program’s sponsor, and this response seemed to encompass an awareness of both content and pedagogical knowledge and cross-cultural learning. SE: Hmm [unclear] it’s like why government send us here. It’s like to get everything about English, and also the culture and stuff. But

591

for the academic stuff perhaps to improve our language and to get like more inputs on the pedagogy and stuff. For the Malaysian teacher educators, the question was not specifically on the trans-national experience but on the teacher education program more generally, although some participants did explicitly focus their response on the cohort of students who would be going to New Zealand. The type of question asked of the Malaysian teacher educators is illustrated by the following: JM: Oh OK. Great. And so when you think about these young people who are being trained to be teachers, what’s your goal for them? What… how do you want them to be as teachers in the classroom? There was a range of responses offered to this question, with the majority mentioning the role of the teacher. There were multiple aspects to this, and the following three examples illustrate the main themes associated with this category of response. The first example suggests a characteristic of a good teacher—an enthusiasm or passion for teaching; the second is a succinct expression of the wish to develop critical thinking; and the third sees the teacher as an agent of change. MyA: Um… the first thing that I tell them is that you must be interested to be a teacher if you want to really enjoy your career as a teacher. That’s one. MyN: To be able to make the students think. MyP: I would like them to be different from the… how would I say how do I name that group the conventional the normal inverted comma in that sense that it’s like the very predictable type traditional way of doing 592

things. I would like them to do something… something different. There were fewer responses that focused on content and pedagogical knowledge, and the responses related to content knowledge tended to be more focused on linguistic knowledge than performance, as the following, very context-dependent, example makes clear. MyC: First and foremost I think talking about the [university] students in particular. […] So there are times when they make very glaring errors like for example if they were to say student for a primary school right here we are very particular about using the word pupil for primary school. I know student is a very common term regardless of which particular stage you are at educationally. But over here in Malaysia as long as we deal with primary schools we use the word pupils so then I would say student [rising tone]. And then the rest of them would laugh and then they said oh no pupil. OK, that is what I would correct them.

Discussion The most obvious point to make is that the interview responses reveal three different emphases for participants in the teacher education program. What one group viewed as desirable was not necessarily desired by the others. This is shown in Table 18.3. For the Malaysian teacher educators the strongest emphasis was on aspects of the role of the teacher. Conceivably this meant that the pre-service teachers needed

593

to be prepared to take their place in society, unlike the bewildered students Greenholtz (2003) described. Although this group did not explicitly focus on the trans-national experience, it was striking that their views were distinctly different from those of the pre-service teachers and the teacher educators in New Zealand, who also had distinctly different goals from each other for the 2 years spent in New Zealand. The most important aspect for the former group was content knowledge—improving their individual language skills—whereas for the latter it was pedagogical knowledge, which had also been suggested as the primary need for this cohort of pre-service teachers (Macalister, 2012). The development of pedagogical knowledge was sometimes viewed by respondents as knowledge transfer. In short, one group was focused on personal development, the other on professional development. Table 18.3 Categories, Themes, and Predominant Responses

594

The pre-service teachers’ concern with individual language development may be related to the question of teacher self-image. In other words, to be an English teacher one needs to be proficient in the language. This is not an uncommon view. For example, Seidlhofer (1999, p. 241) found that 60% of Austrian teachers of English who responded to a questionnaire about the preparation provided by their teacher education programs thought that the emphasis had been on becoming as near-native as possible, and almost the same number indicated that being a non-native speaker provoked feelings of insecurity rather than confidence. Thus, it may well be that more thought needs to be given to addressing the native speaker/non-native speaker dichotomy in this program (cf. Reis, 2011). If improving individual language proficiency is an aspect of teacher self-image, then possibly the pre-service teachers’ concern here is as much about characteristics of the teacher (a theme incorporated in the role of the teacher category; see Table 18.3) as it is about content knowledge, in which case the pre-service teachers’ responses coincide more closely with those of the Malaysian teacher educators. It is almost certainly the case that the responses of both these groups were influenced by familiarity with the Malaysian educational and social context, which was not the case with the New Zealand-based teacher educators. Some of this group had visited Malaysia: Ok, yeah, yeah. Ok, good. And, have you ever been to Malaysia? NZF: Yes, twice. JM:

595

So you’ve got any idea of the Malaysian education system? NZF: Um … JM: Or were you just lying on beaches? Lying on beaches, eating food, very nice food. Ah, not really, no, I don’t, I understand the fact that there are a NZF: number of different languages used and the students are often tri-lingual. No I don’t know very much. JM:

None, however, had spent time in Malaysian classrooms. JM: […] When, you mentioned before about Malaysia, and I don’t know the answer to this, when you, when you, have you visited the schools? NZD: No. I’d be very keen to, it’s just that the visits are really tight, in and out. […] Although I see [name] managed, although [name] had that problem initially, I see that [name] managed to get in for some research that she’s doing. This is not to deny, however, that at least some of the New Zealand-based teacher educators strove to understand the Malaysian context, as demonstrated in this extract. NZA: I’d like to know more. Certainly would like to know more. Um, I think that I have tried to gather information from the students, so I get them to say in classes, so what sort of contexts are you working within and how would this work in Malaysia, what are the constraints? What are the, what opportunities does the Malaysian environment give you if you’re a teacher in Malaysia? How’s that going to be for you? How’s your training, what are you doing? 596

The following extract also shows a New Zealand-based teacher educator developing understanding of the Malaysian context. Furthermore, it shows some, if not all, did not see it as their role to determine how Malaysian teachers taught in Malaysian classrooms. Rather, they needed to understand why they taught the way they taught. NZB: […] They told me a certain amount about the classroom situations which they were used to in Malaysia and I wanted them to experience something different to that. Not necessarily so they would do it differently when they went home but so that if they were going to do it the same they were used to they were going to do it for reasons that made sense to them. Um, not just because they had never thought about any other possible way of doing it. Overall, the New Zealand-based teacher educators were focused on developing a research-based understanding of good language teaching practice in their students (not all of whom were Malaysian), and this would seem to be consistent with the purpose of this trans-national teacher education program as an opportunity for change and development. Although there was a general recognition of the importance of context they were not, however, in a position to draw on experience with the target teaching context. Furthermore, whereas three of the six respondents in this group did appear to view the type of knowledge transfer criticised by Kanu (2005) as desirable, the remaining three were not actively promoting what may be characterised as a BANA approach (Table 18.1), even if characteristics of such an approach were evident in their imagined teaching of an informational text (Macalister, 2011). 597

An important question that arises from this discussion is whether the fact that the three stakeholder groups gave distinctly different emphases to the question about the goal of the program is a cause for concern. It may, after all, suggest a lack of clarity about the purpose of the program, and a lack of coherence between the component parts (see Table 18.2). Yet, drawing attention to the similarities in responses rather than focusing solely on the differences suggests that the differing perceptions are not incompatible. Two of the themes that emerged from the Malaysian teacher educator interviews, for example, would seem to map on to the responses from their New Zealand-based counterparts. Teachers will be agents of change through

Figure 18.1 Overlapping perceptions. applying new approaches, for example, just as teachers will develop critical thinking skills and understand the principles underlying their approach to teaching. Thus, as Figure 18.1 suggests, the three perspectives do overlap and have at least

598

the potential to prepare the pre-service teachers on this program to enter the classroom well-prepared to begin their teaching careers. Taken together, these three perspectives may achieve the personal, professional, and cross-cultural benefits claimed elsewhere for trans-national education (e.g., Sahin, 2008).

Conclusion Teacher education programs are change programs, and to achieve change they should create dissonance between what is already known and has already been experienced and what is expected to be known and has yet to be experienced. One catalyst for change may be a trans-national educational experience, although developing a trans-national teacher education program can be a challenging undertaking and may not generally be possible. When such a program is envisaged, however, there are questions that should be considered, questions such as those signalled in this chapter, including the extent to which program goals need to be shared by stakeholders, the extent to which the target teaching context needs to be considered, and whether the trans-national component is promoting an appropriate approach for that context. At the same time, this chapter has provided a snapshot of only one element of a multi-year, multi-component pre-service language teacher education program. It should not, therefore, be seen as presenting any form of judgment on the program. The study of these pre-service teachers’ journey is conceived as a longitudinal one, and there will be opportunities to investigate the impact of the trans-national component on the

599

developing cognition of these pre-service teachers in the future. There will also be opportunities to investigate the impact of the program as a whole, to explore the extent to which these pre-service teachers have been prepared to take their places as members of the target teaching culture. This exploration of the similarities and differences in perceptions of needs among the three stakeholder groups may provide input for any later evaluation of the program, for it reminds us that a ‘good’ program may hold a different meaning for different groups. Ultimately, evaluation will reveal whether what was desired was, in fact, desirable.

References Al-Mekhlafi, A., & Nagaratnam, R.P. (2012). From firm ground to shifting sands: Issues in adopting learner-centred ESL/EFL pedagogy. The English Teacher, 41(1), 71–84. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York/ Toronto: Teachers College Press/OISE Press. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from North

600

American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching 35(1), 1–13. Greenholtz, J. (2003). Socratic teachers and Confucian learners: Examining the benefits and pitfalls of a year abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 122–130. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, A. (2001). The struggle to teach English as an International Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H.G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kanu, Y. (2005). Tensions and dilemmas of cross-cultural transfer of knowledge: Post-structural/postcolonial reflections on an innovative teacher education in Pakistan. [doi: 10.1016/ j.ijedudev.2005.01.002]. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(5), 493–513. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Macalister, J. (2010). Investigating teacher attitudes to extensive reading practices in higher education: Why isn’t everyone doing it? RELC Journal, 41(1), 59–75.

601

Macalister, J. (2011). Teaching with information texts: Comparing the beliefs of Malaysian and New Zealand trainers. Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 56–70. Macalister, J. (2012). Pre-service teacher cognition and vocabulary teaching. RELC Journal, 43(1), 99–111. Nation, I.S.P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York and London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Reis, D.S. (2011). English as an International Language and linguistic legitimacy: Empowering ESL speakers’ identities. In K. Ciepiela (Ed.), Identity through a language lens (pp. 119–135). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Richards, J.C. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Simon & Schuster. Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J.D. Raths & A.R. McAn-inch (Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Sahin, M. (2008). Cross-cultural experience in preservice teacher education. [doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.006]. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1777–1790.

602

Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 18(2), 233–245.

603

Afterword Rethinking Global Perspectives and Local Initiatives in Language Teaching B. Kumaravadivelu Although the essays in this collection have been neatly divided into six thematic parts, they present an array of overlapping issues concerning global perspectives and local initiatives in language teaching and teacher education. Among these, I focus on five major ones that I believe straddle several chapters. They are: (a) expanding the professional horizon, (b) professionalizing the teaching force, (c) constructing professional identities, (d) aligning beliefs and practices, and (e) technologizing classroom practices. Several contributors address different aspects of these issues directly or indirectly. In this Afterword, I highlight some of the useful insights gained, and then suggest certain critical pathways forward.

Expanding the Professional Horizon As I see it, a noteworthy intention of the editors of this volume is to expand the professional horizon of language teaching and teacher education by foregrounding the voices of (mainly) the periphery in a meaningful way. Their objective in putting together a volume on global perspectives and local initiatives is indeed commendable: “this global/local paradigm is not simply limited to a set of geographical 604

exemplars but will also illustrate, for instance, how teachers and teacher educators are faced with the role of mediators and negotiators between global (e.g., curricula, stakeholders’ advocacies, idealized perspectives, expectations, among other things) and local (e.g., transition into professional lives, narratives, lived experiences, teachers’ socialization, integrating the teachers’ community of practice, etc.) dimensions.” The editors have tempered this lofty objective by noting the ground reality “where being a native speaker is equivalent to being a qualified and competent teacher” and where non-native professionals are put at a distinct disadvantage. This is followed by a rather hopeful observation that such a reality is slowly becoming “obsolete in today’s world where a large number of non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) are actively engaged in teaching and research in the profession.” Continuing a similar trend, the introductory chapter by Hayes and Chang on the politics of comparison between the global and the local reminds us, if any reminder is needed, that the model for educational progress in the periphery is still something that is imported from the Center. We live in a world where English language use among non-native speakers of English far exceeds English language use between native and non-native speakers. Nevertheless, it is sobering to note that Hayes and Chang found it necessary to end their essay with the plea that “teachers’ language expertise should be considered in terms of a model which reflects the realities of cross-cultural communication amongst NNES rather than NES models.” What the editors’ introduction and the Hayes and Chang chapter seek to emphasize is the need for expanding the professional space of the periphery in a meaningful way. 605

Professionalizing the Teaching Force There is no doubt that the 21st century will increasingly demand that an educated citizen should become a global citizen as well. This demand puts an enormous burden on the shoulders of teachers and teacher educators, not only to equip themselves with high levels of professional knowledge and skill, but also to continue to upgrade them from time to time. This is particularly true for language teachers because language is the prime tool that carries global images and global flows. Recognizing the importance of this demand, several contributors (e.g., Hayes and Chang; Yoshida and Kambara; Kim; Andon and Leung) rightly argue that the best way to meet the challenges posed by the increasingly globalized society is to professionalize the teaching force. The contributors tell us that professionalizing the teaching force entails promoting a culture of continuous professional development. In this context, they highlight the development of exploratory skills necessary to conduct classroom-oriented, locally-grounded teacher research. As can be expected, narrative inquiry has been found to help teachers develop their pedagogic concepts. Such an inquiry enhances teachers’ vision, and empowers their voice as well. Whereas we have been advised to share locally-generated narrative stories of ‘best practices’ among more global communities of practitioners (Yoshida and Kambara), we have also been warned that what is effective in one context may not be effective in another unless they are properly adapted to suit differing sociocultural and educational characteristics (Hayes and Chang). Such a cautionary note certainly warrants serious attention because, in the name of educational globalization

606

and international comparison, several governments, particularly in Asia and Africa, tend to make the mistake of advocating the adoption of Center-produced ‘best practices’ whether they are appropriate to local conditions or not.

Bridging Beliefs and Practices Closely related to the task of professionalizing the teaching force is the role of the personal and professional beliefs that teachers bring with them to the practice of their everyday teaching. In order to shed light on this issue, some of the contributors explore the degree to which teachers are able and willing to bridge the gap between their entrenched beliefs and their classroom practices (e.g., Goh and Chen; Farrell and Tomenson-Filion; Fan). Their studies reinforce our understanding that teacher beliefs deeply and directly influence what and how they teach. They also make it clear that teachers’ beliefs are shaped by several factors such as their personality, their exposure to teaching during their student days, what they learned in their teacher education programs, and their own ongoing teaching experience (Farrell and Tomenson-Filion). Given the unfailing influence beliefs have on the pedagogic decision-making processes of practicing teachers, teacher educators are faced with the challenge of developing necessary critical thinking as well as analytical skills in their student-teachers in order to enable and encourage them to question their own beliefs, and to change them as warranted. The studies reported here demonstrate that changing beliefs takes time, that it is a gradual process, and that expecting teachers to change their beliefs dramatically is not a realistic

607

option. It is, however, satisfying that teacher educators and practicing teachers in various international contexts are becoming more and more aware of the need to critically study one’s own beliefs, to closely monitor the gap between beliefs and practices, and to continuously make efforts to reduce the gap.

Constructing Professional Identities Any meaningful attempt to understand the complexities of teacher beliefs necessarily entails an understanding of teacher identities. The process of forming and reforming teachers’ identities has become acutely complicated because of the challenges and opportunities posed by the ongoing processes of globalization. Construction of teacher identities is a multi-dimensional task, as revealed by the studies on professional subjectivities (Reis), projection of self (Ben Said and Shegar), teacher voice (Louw, Watson-Todd, and Jimarkon), teacher interest (Lee), and teacher perceptions (Zhou; Macalister). These studies bring out how student-teachers as well as practicing teachers negotiate the nature of their emerging professional identity. In all the studies that are concerned with teacher identity in one way or another, one can easily discern a common emphasis: the imperative need to establish teacher education programs that are truly transformative in nature. We learn that only such a program can explicitly facilitate the construction of desired professional identities in the prospective teacher without casually leaving it as a by-product of teacher preparation. We learn that institutes of teacher education can no longer assume that

608

they can shape the professional identities of their student-teachers through ‘prefabricated institutional images.’ We learn that teacher education programs must provide student-teachers with opportunities to voice their unique professional subjectivities within the historical, social, and political exigencies under which they operate. In other words, what these studies show is that both prospective and practicing teachers do exercise their agency, and therefore it must be recognized, reinforced, and rewarded during and after teacher preparation.

Technologizing Classroom Practices Today’s globalized world is a digitalized world. Internetization of information is the hallmark of our contemporary society. Many of the young men and women who enroll in our language classes all over the world are quite savvy about using the internet and other forms of social media. It, therefore, makes eminent sense to use various forms of technology for purposes of language learning, teaching, and teacher education. Some of the contributors to this volume illustrate how teachers and teacher educators can easily and profitably connect the global and the local by technologizing classroom practices (e.g., Yoshida and Kambara; Dooly; and Verity). As part of technologizing classroom practices, a specific focus on Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) yields enormous opportunities for our learners to use the target language for communicative purposes. Such e-learning and e-functioning, we learn, helps teachers and learners to discover the ‘distributive’ characteristic of knowledge.

609

Furthermore, if promoting negotiated interaction is considered to play a key role in successful second language acquisition, then the use of CMC provides unlimited learning opportunities. Whereas the use of CMC is definitely welcome, we have been cautioned that we should not become a slave to technology and that a sensible use of it requires a paradigmatic shift in our understanding of knowledge and learning. The five major issues highlighted previously have been explored by the contributors using theoretical, practical, experimental, or experiential approaches. They have connected their local initiatives with global perspectives in a commendable fashion. They have succeeded in helping us understand how these issues play out in several international contexts represented in this volume. As a result, they have in some ways reinforced and in some other ways extended our current knowledge base. At a different level of introspection though, a nagging question remains: To what extent can the professionals and practitioners from the periphery advance the frontiers of knowledge if they continue to do reactive research based on the Center-based methods and models of knowledge production? Perhaps what is needed is an epistemic break that signifies a fundamental reconceptualization of research itself (for details, see Kumaravadivelu, 2012a). Minimally, such an epistemic break warrants proactive, not reactive, research on the part of scholars from the periphery. Proactive research involves “paying attention to the particularities of learning/teaching in periphery countries, identifying researchable questions, investigating them using appropriate research methods, 610

producing original knowledge and applying them in classroom contexts” (Kumaravadivelu, 2012a, pp. 17–18). Rethinking global perspectives and local initiatives along the lines of possible epistemic break points us to certain pathways forward.

Pathways Forward In order to prompt reflective thoughts on possible ways forward, I draw the readers’ attention to two recent publications, one from the field of general education, and another from applied linguistics. The first is The Global Fourth Way, co-authored by two leading educationists, Andy Hargreaves and Dennis Shirley (2012). In it, they present an erudite treatment of the ongoing global quest for educational excellence at the school level, citing case studies that include success stories from countries such as Finland and Singapore. They extol global business models, citing how the models make a distinction between incremental improvements and disruptive innovations. The former is aimed at making small but substantial improvements in existing products whereas the latter is aimed at radically changing the product in order to get far superior results. The authors provide a telling example: electronic typewriters clearly marked a vast improvement over manual typewriters, but when in the 1980s a new innovative product called personal computers came into the market, they wiped out both electronic typewriters and the entire typewriting industry. And, the world is better for it. Inspired by such a global business model, Hargreaves and Shirley ask: “What is the role of schools and educational systems in relation to educational change in the 21st century?

611

Should they be improving what they already do, and undertake everything in their power to make it better, and more effective? Or, should they be embracing innovation in terms of new ideas, outcomes, and practices—not merely marking their existing practice more effective, but transforming that practice and perhaps even the nature of their institutions altogether?” (pp. 21–22, italics as in the original). The authors clearly prefer innovation, but settle for a combination of improvements and innovations. There are lessons here for us. Do we merely tinker with existing applied linguistic principles and products emanating from dominant global quarters, and improve them by adapting them to suit local historical, sociocultural, and educational contexts, or, do we want to challenge ourselves to go beyond incremental improvements and actively engage in knowledge production that will genuinely expand our professional horizon? A partial response to the previous query has been attempted in the second book I wanted to mention. At the risk of sounding immodest, I wish to draw the readers’ attention to Language Teacher Education for a Global Society (Kumaravadivelu, 2012b). For a long time, we have been engaged in a relentless pursuit of continuous quality improvement in English language teacher education. We successfully questioned the misguided curricular content of traditional teacher education programs. We advocated teacher-centered, pedagogy-oriented courses. We reduced course load on theoretical linguistics, and studies in second language acquisition. We incorporated Vygotskian sociocultural theories. We rooted for ‘located’ L2 teacher education. But, with very few exceptions, we tried to do all this basically within the existing system of language teacher education that 612

is flawed both conceptually and structurally. Conceptually, the system is aimed (a) at transmitting a generic set of pre-selected and pre-sequenced body of knowledge from teacher educators to prospective teachers without taking into account their specific needs, wants, and situations; and (b) at turning teachers into consumers of knowledge rather than producers of knowledge. Structurally, most of the current programs offer prospective teachers a series of discrete courses in areas such as linguistic theories, second language acquisition, pedagogic grammar, methods, curriculum, and testing, usually ending with a capstone course in practicum or practice teaching. It is within such a rigid system that the changes have been recommended and made. In other words, the emphasis has largely been on ‘incremental improvements.’ The book cited previously seeks to go beyond ‘incremental improvements.’ It is based on the premise that “merely tinkering with the existing system of language teacher education will not suffice to meet the challenges posed by accelerating economic, cultural, and educational globalization, and that what is surely and sorely needed is no less than a radical restructuring of language teacher education” (Kumaravadivelu, 2012b, p. xii). Accordingly, the book presents a radically different model consisting of five modules—Knowing, Analyzing, Recognizing, Doing, and Seeing. It seeks to push language teacher education away from the perils of discrete, product-based, transmission-oriented approaches, and towards the promise of holistic, process-based, transformation-oriented approaches to teaching and teacher education.

613

The authors of the two books see incremental improvements as necessary but not sufficient to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by ongoing processes of economic, cultural, and educational globalization. They believe that improvement involves systemic continuity; innovation entails epistemic break, and it is the latter that can lead to fundamental changes. There is potential here for possible pathways forward. Perhaps we can begin by rethinking global perspectives and local initiatives in a way that blends improvement and innovation.

References Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012a). Individual identity, cultural globalization, and teaching English as an International language: The case for an epistemic break. In L. Alsagoff, S.L. McKay, G. Wu, & W.A. Renandya, Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 9–27). New York: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012b). Language teacher education for a global society. New York: Routledge.

614

Contributors Nick Andon has been involved in English language teaching, teacher education, and materials development for over 30 years in the UK, Africa, Latin America, Indonesia, and Oman. He currently runs the MA in ELT and applied linguistics at King’s College London where he also teaches on a BA and supervises PhD students. His research interests include teacher knowledge and expertise, teacher education, the role of materials in language teaching and learning, task-based language learning, learner autonomy, and ICT in language learning. Laurent Cammarata is associate professor in education at the University of Alberta. He works in the preparation and ongoing professional development of foreign language, ESL, and immersion teachers for K–12 settings. Prior to becoming a teacher educator, he taught both ESL and EFL. His publications have appeared in journals such as the Canadian Modern Language Review, Foreign Language Annals, L2 Journal, Modern Language Journal, and the American Council on Immersion Education (ACIE) Newsletter. Dr. Cammarata’s research interests include language teacher preparation/development and the pedagogy necessary for balancing content and language instruction, particularly within foreign language and language immersion contexts. Kyungsuk Chang has been a researcher for the Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation since 2002. Previously she worked as an English teacher and teacher trainer in secondary

615

schools and universities. Her current research interests include language policy, school-focused teacher development, and materials for children with learning difficulties. Zan Chen received her PhD in Applied Linguistics at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She is currently a research associate at the OER department. Her main research interests are in the areas of teacher cognition in oral English instruction, with a focus on the EFL context. A former university EFL lecturer in China, Zan Chen is also interested in issues associated with EFL teacher education and development. She has published on teacher cognition and oral English teaching and learning. She has also been an active presenter in both local and international conferences. Melinda Dooly has been a teacher educator at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona since 1992. She served as head of graduate studies for both the PhD studies and the master’s in research in language and literature education from 2009–2012. She is the editor of a book series, Telecollaboration in Education, published by Peter Lang, and the criticism and reviews editor of the international academic journal, Language and Intercultural Communication (Taylor and Francis/Routledge). She has been the principal investigator of several national and EU projects and served as the national coordinator for the Erasmus Network CiCe (Children’s Identity and Citizenship Education) from 2002–2011. Her scholarly interests include foreign language teaching methods, language learning and new technologies (telecollaboration), project-based language learning,

616

intercultural communication and language learning, and plurilingualism and language learning. William Dunn is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta. He works primarily in the areas of teacher preparation, second language education, and addressing language, literacy, and culture in school content areas. His research explores intercultural inquiry in second language teacher education, creativity in language teaching, preparing future teachers to work in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms, and connections between language learning and social inclusion. His publications have appeared in journals such as Language Teaching Research, Canadian Diversity, Language Learning, and the Canadian Journal of Education. Hongli Fan received her master’s degree from the Foreign Affairs College in China in 2000 and her PhD in linguistics from the University of Florida, Gainesville, in 2005. She is currently an assistant professor of French and linguistics at State University of New York at Cortland where she teaches courses in French, TESOL, and linguistics. Her research interests lie in the areas of TESOL teacher training, the acquisition of Chinese and French as second languages, foreign language teaching, and cross-cultural communication. Thomas S.C. Farrell is professor of applied linguistics at Brock University, Canada. His professional interests include reflective practice, and language teacher education and development. His recent books include Essentials in Language Teaching (with George Jacobs, 2010, Continuum Press); Teaching Practice: A Reflective Approach (with Jack

617

Richards, 2011, Cambridge University Press), Reflecting on Teaching the Four Skills (2012, The University of Michigan Press), and Reflective Writing for Language Teachers (2012, Equinox). His web page is www.reflectiveinquiry.ca Antoinette Gagné is an associate professor in the Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning, and the academic advisor for the Academic Success Centre at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. She has been a language teacher educator for more than 30 years, written three textbook series for English language learners in Canada, and taken part in several curriculum renewal and language proficiency development and assessment projects. Her research has focused on the diversification of the teaching force, teacher education curriculum, as well as the involvement of immigrant families and the integration of immigrant teachers and learners in elementary and secondary schools. Christine C.M. Goh is Professor of Linguistics and Language Education at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She is a teacher educator and researcher with interest in second language speaking and listening development, metacognition in language learning, small group talk, discourse intonation of speakers of English as an international language, teacher cognition and managing change in English language education. She has published many articles and books in these areas, the latest of these are Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach (with Anne Burns, 2012, Cambridge University Press), Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening:

618

Metacognition in Action (with Larry Vandergrift, 2012, Routledge). David Hayes is associate professor in the Department of Applied Linguistics, Brock University, Canada, where he has worked since 2006. He has wide-ranging experience of curriculum development and trainer and teacher development programs in South and South-East Asia. He has published extensively in the area of in-service trainer and teacher development and also contributed articles on the lives and careers of non-native English-speaking teachers to journals such as Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, Harvard Education Review, Language Teaching Research, System, and TESOL Quarterly. Pattamawan Jimarkon is an assistant professor in applied linguistics at the School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi, Thailand. She received her PhD in education from the University of Nottingham. Her research interests include sociolinguistic analyses of language texts, discourse practice, and discursive events. Karen E. Johnson is Kirby professor in language learning and applied linguistics in the Department of Applied Linguistics at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on a sociocultural theoretical perspective on teacher learning and second language teacher education, the knowledge base of second language teacher education, and the dynamics of communication in second language classrooms. Her most recent books include: Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective (2009, Routledge) and Research on Second Language

619

Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective Professional Development (2011, Routledge).

on

Katsunori Kambara is a teacher of English as a foreign language at a public junior high school in Hyogo, Japan. He completed his master’s degree in 2010, and since then he has been interested in narrative inquiry. He is currently involved in classroom research on peer feedback in writing activities and cooperative language learning. Eun-Ju Kim is an assistant professor at the Department of English in Hanyang Women’s University, and received her doctoral degree in applied linguistics from The Pennsylvania State University. She taught English in both South Korean middle schools and the ESL program in Penn State. She also taught Korean as a foreign language in the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California. Since 2008, she has been involved in several in-service English teacher education programs in South Korea. Her research interests include sociocultural perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching, language teachers’ professional development, and academic writing. Icy Lee is professor in the Faculty of Education at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include second language writing and teacher development. She was formerly president of the Hong Kong Association for Applied Linguistics and chair of the non-native English speakers in TESOL interest section of TESOL International Association. She was a recipient of the 2010 TESOL Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1999 TESOL Award for Excellence in the Development of Pedagogical Materials. Her article Understanding Teachers’ Written Feedback Practices 620

in Hong Kong Secondary Classrooms won the 2008 Journal of Second Language Writing Award. Constant Leung is professor of educational linguistics in the Centre for Language Discourse and Communication, Department of Education and Professional Studies at King’s College, London. He also serves as the deputy head of the department. He was the founding chair of the National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum (NALDIC), a national subject association for teachers of English as an Additional Language in the UK. His research interests include additional/second language curriculum, language assessment, language policy, and teacher professional development. He is associate editor for Language Assessment Quarterly and editor of research issues for TESOL Quarterly. Stephen Louw is the lead trainer for the Chichester College TESOL program in Bangkok. He has worked in ELT for over 20 years and is a doctoral candidate at King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi, Thailand. John Macalister has research and teaching interests in the fields of language teaching methodology and curriculum design. He is head of the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and president of the Applied Linguistics Association of New Zealand. Two recent books, both with Paul Nation and published by Routledge, are Language Curriculum Design (2010) and Case Studies in Language Curriculum Design (2011).

621

Ian McGrath has published widely on materials evaluation and design and its importance in language teacher education. His most recent publication is Teaching Materials and the Role of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and Theory (2013, Bloomsbury) and the second edition of his widely used Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teachers (Edinburgh University Press) will be published later this year. Following periods as an associate professor in TESOL in universities in Hong Kong and the UK, he recently spent two years at the National Institute of Education in Singapore. He is now a freelance educational consultant based in the UK. Davi S. Reis is an assistant professor at Duquesne University’s School of Education, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Currently, he teaches an undergraduate course in the Leading Teacher Program to prepare pre-service teachers to support English Language Learners (ELLs) in mainstream classrooms and graduate courses on cultural and linguistic diversity in teaching in the English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) certificate program offered by Duquesne University. Davi’s scholarly interests include (second language) teacher education for cultural and linguistic diversity and social justice; Vygotskian sociocultural theory; the intersections of language, culture, identity, and power; NNEST-related research; narratives and narrative inquiry; and qualitative research methods. Chitra Shegar is an assistant professor with Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her areas of specialization are second language acquisition, language teaching methodology, and teacher education. Her work in teacher education involves teacher professional development in literacy instruction and transformation pedagogical 622

practice. She has published in journals and presented papers in several international conferences. She is also managing editor of Pedagogies, an international journal. Vitaliy Shyyan is a senior specialist in education at the Ukrainian Language Education Centre of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta. He also teaches at the Department of Secondary Education of the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta. Dr. Shyyan’s research interests include intercultural education, assessment accommodation policies, instructional strategies for English language learners with disabilities, bilingual education, and futures studies. He has presented his research widely and published his work in journals such as Assessment for Effective Intervention and World Future Review. Barbara Tomenson-Filion is a teacher at Ridley College, Canada. She has been involved with independent international schools in Canada for over 15 years. Her research includes in-class teacher observation at various levels. She graduated from Brock University, Canada, with her master’s in applied linguistics (TESL). Marlon Valencia is a PhD candidate in second language education, as well as comparative international and developing education, at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. His research interests include second language teacher education, language policy and planning, multi-literacies, and language in social identities. He has taught English and Spanish as additional languages (second/foreign) in Canada, Colombia, and the U.S. His work also involves pre-service language teacher proficiency assessment, and curriculum design for the 623

teaching of both languages in colleges and universities in North America. Deryn P. Verity was professor of English in the Department of International & English Interdisciplinary Studies at Osaka Jogakuin College, in Osaka, Japan, from 2004 to 2012. She has led ESL, EFL, teacher education classes, and professional development seminars and workshops in the U.S., Japan, Thailand, Slovenia, Serbia, Morocco, Jordan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Her interests are sociocultural theory, understanding the language of instruction, and pedagogical grammar. She has recently moved to the Department of Applied Linguistics at the Pennsylvania State University in the U.S., where she is director of EAP Programs. Richard Watson Todd is associate professor and head of the Centre for Research and Services at King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi, Thailand, and holds a PhD from the University of Liverpool. His interests include text linguistics, computer applications in language use, and innovative research methodologies. Tatsuhiro Yoshida is associate professor at the Graduate School of Education, Hyogo University of Teacher Education, Japan. He has been involved in pre- and in-service EFL teacher education and their professional development. His research interests include sociocultural theory to language learning and language teachers’ professional development using narrative inquiry. Wenying Zhou is a teacher of language teachers with extensive ESL and CFL teaching and teacher training experiences. Currently, she is working as director of the 624

Online Chinese Program for the Confucius Institute at Michigan State University (CI—MSU) to (1) train CFL teachers for both classroom and online teaching; (2) use student outcome data to identify “best practices” in both face-to-face and online language instruction; and (3) develop and test improved curriculum and teaching materials for students. She has recently been hired as assistant professor by the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, & Special Education at the College of Education, Michigan State University.

625

Author Index A Abbott, M. 272 Aberdeen, T. 272 Adamson, B. 60, 71 Adelman, L. 97, 105 Agar, M. 101, 103 Aiello, G. 129, 148 Akbari, R. 60–61, 71, 185 Aksit, T. 17, 25 Alexander, R.J. 22–23 Al-Issa, A. 298 Allen, W. 273, 285 Allwright, D. xx–xxi, xxvii, 233 Allwright, R. 202 Al-Mekhlafi, A. 305 626

Alsagoff, L. xxx, 120, 125 Alsup, J. xxvii, 93, 103, 127, 147 Anderson, M. 70, 72 Anderson, R.E. 115, 124 Andon, N. 62, 71–72 Andrews, S. xx, xxvii, 169, 180 Ang, S. 299 Anthony, L. 190 Anthony, N. 239, 249 Arends, R.I. 17, 23 Arnold, N. 249 Assinder, W. 203–204, 213 Athanases, S.A. 102–103

B Babin, B.J. 115, 124 Backhaus, P. 129, 147 Bailey, K.M. xx, xxvii, 185, 195 627

Baker, P. 190 Bakhtin, M.M. 186 Baldauf, R. 26–28, 40 Baldwin, S. 76, 87 Ball, A. 102–103 Barab, S.A. 244 Bar-Hama, R. 185 Barkhuizen, G. xx, xxvii, 219, 234, 307 Barni, M. 4, 6, 127–128, 149 Bartels, N. 75, 88 Basturkmen, H. xxvi, xxvii, 169, 182 Batalova, J. 89, 103 Bauerle, A. 238 Bauman, Z. 237 Baumrind, D. 299 Bax, S. 3, 6, 59, 61, 72 Bayliss, D. 26, 29, 39

628

Beauchamp, C. 127, 147 Bell, D. 71–72 Bennett, J.M. 273, 285 Bennett, M.J. 273, 276, 285 Ben Rafael, E. 4, 6, 127–128, 149 Ben Said, S. i, iii, v, vii-xix, xxiii, xxviii Bentler, P.M. 115, 124 Benwell, B. 4, 6, 128–130, 147 Bess, J.L. 151, 164 Biklen, S.K. 47, 54 Bicknell, J. 204 Black, W.C. 115, 124 Blommaert, J. 194–195 Blum-Kulka, S. 195 Bogdan, R.C. 47, 54 Borg, M. 169 Borg, S. xx, xxvi, xxvii, 1, 6, 111–112, 117–118, 123, 125, 169–170, 182, 187, 303 629

Bote, L.A. 127, 148 Boutin, F. 29–30, 40 Boutin, J.-L. 29–30, 40 Bowman, C. 111, 124 Bradley, M.E. 262 Braine, G. xx, xxvii, 51, 54 Brandt, C. 185 Brazil, N. 297 Breen, M.P. xx, xxvii, 68, 169–170 Britton, E. 297, 299 Bronack, S. 256, 259 Brown, H.D. 61, 72 Browne, M.W. 114, 124 Brown, T. 127, 147 Brumfit, C. 114, 123 Bruthiaux, P. 120, 123 Bryan, G. 204

630

Buchanan, A. 76, 87 Buchanan, C. 97, 103 Bunuan, R. 128, 148 Burchett, R. 238 Burgess, A. 237 Burns, A. xx, xxvii–xxviii, 1, 6, 111, 123, 233 Burridge, T. 13, 23 Busch, D. 162 Bygate, M. xxiii, xxx Byun, S.-Y. 22–23

C Cabaroglu, N. 160 Calderhead, J. 111, 123 Campbell, C. 203–204 Campbell, R.J. 17–18, 23 Canagarajah, A.S. xx, xxiii, xxv–xxviii Canale, M. 29, 40 631

Cardinal, L. 26–27, 40 Cardno, C. 18, 24 Carroll, D.W. 190 Carspecken, P.F. 133, 147 Carter, M. 257 Carter-Wells, J. 256 Casanave, C.P. 257–258 Cassidy, O. 97, 103 Castells, M. 237 Cenoz, J. 132, 147 Chaiklin, S. 93, 103 Chamberlin, C. 75, 88 Chan, A. 204 Chan, K. 151 Chan, K.-W. 20, 24 Chen, C.W. 288 Chen, Z. 110, 123

632

Cheng, J. 97, 105 Cheng, L. 297 Cheng, Y. 288 Chilcoat, G. 204 Ching, C.C. 238 Chinien, C. 29–30, 40 Chong, S. 128, 148 Christian, D. 271 Cisneros, S. 96, 103 Clandinin, J. 127, 148, 219–220, 233–235, 303 Clark, C.M. 117, 123 Clarke, D. 201–203, 213 Clarke, M. xxviii, 61, 72, 127, 148 Clayton, C.D.G. 150 Cochran-Smith, M. 164, 219, 258 Cohen, L. 187 Coladarci, T. 118, 123

633

Colby, J. 272 Comeaux, M.A. 17, 24 Commins, L.N. 97, 103 Connelly, M. 127, 148, 219, 233–235, 303 Cook, L.S. 147, 149 Cook, V.J. xxv, xxviii, 60, 64, 68, 72 Coombe, C. 203 Corbin, J.M. 290 Cortazzi, M. 109, 124 Coulmas, F. 128, 148 Coulthard, M. 151 Cradler, J. 238 Cran, W. 97, 103 Crandall, J. 14–15 Creek, R. 117, 123 Creswell, J. 47, 54 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 150

634

Cullen, R. 16, 23 Cummins, J. 27, 40 Cunningham, M. 18–20, 23 Cuper, P. 241 Curran, M. 298–299 Curtin, E.M. 272

D Dai, M. 110, 123–124 Dalsgaard, C. 262 Danesi, M. 27, 40 Danielewicz, J. 127, 148 Darling-Hammond, L. xxvii–xxviii Dau, J.B. 97, 104 Davies, A. 59, 71–72 Day, C. 128, 148 de Groot, F.O. 185 DeJaeghere, J.G. 284 635

de Jong, E. 90, 104 Deller, S. 203–204 Deng, Z. xx, xxviii Dennen, V.P. 257 de Oliveira, L.C. 102–103 Dewey, J. xix–xx, xxviii, 91, 104, 153, 158 Díaz-Rico, L.T. 97, 104 Dimmock, C. 19, 25 Ding, M. 297, 299 Donato, R. 257 Donno, S. 185 Dooly, M. 238 Doughty, C. 203 Downes, S. 239–240, 247–249, 251 Doyle, P. 111, 124 Dray, S. 129, 148 Ducate, L. 249

636

Duff, P.A. 187, 190 Duffy, T.M. 244 Dunlap, J.C. 256, 262 Dunn, W. 272

E Earley, P.C. 299 Early, M. 271 Echevarria, J. 272 Eckerth, J. 62, 72 Edwards, G. xxx Edwards, A. 55 Egan, M.W. 257 Elder, C. 59, 71–72 Ellis, D. 204 Ellis, R. xx, xxiii, xxviii, 2, 6, 65, 67, 72, 169, 307 Ellis, V. 55 Engeström, Y. 31, 40 637

Eola, I. 273 Erben, T. 29, 40

F Falconer, T. 298 Farr, F. 185, 189, 194 Farrell, T.S.C. viii, xxiv, xxvi, xxx, xxviii, 1, 4, 6, 74–75, 88, 147–148, 169–170, 181, 241 Ferguson, G. 185 Field, A. 114–115, 123 Finocchiaro, M. 114, 123 Fitzsimmons, S. 271, 285 Flood, J. 172–173 Flowerday, T. 152 Flowerdew, J. 75, 88 Foell, K. 29, 41 Fogarty, J.L. 117, 123 Fonseca-Greber, B. 29, 41

638

Forman, D. 204 Foss, P. 97, 103 Foster, R.Y. 111, 124 Foucault, M. 134, 148 Fox Tree, J.E. 189 Fraga-Cañadas, C.P. 30, 40 Freeman, D. xv–xvii, xx, xxiv, xxvi, xxviii, 1, 3, 6, 14–15, 18, 23, 45, 54, 61, 72, 74–76, 86, 88, 91, 104, 221, 238, 303 Freire, P. 88, 90–91, 104 Frost, J. 97, 103

G Gabrielatos, C. 61, 72 Gallagher, M. 238 Gao, X.S. xxi, xxviii Gatbonton, E. xxvi, xxviii Gaudelli, W. 127, 148 Gendelman, I. 129, 148

639

Genesee, F. 271 Germano, R. 97, 104 Gibbs, G. 187 Gill, A. 203, 213 Gingerich, R.R. 288 Giroux, H. xvii Giroux, H.A. 91, 104 Glaser, B. 290 Gobel, K. 242 Godsk, M. 262 Goh, C. viii, xxvi, xxviii, 110–111, 123, 117, 124 Golombek, P.R. 1, 6, 54, 219–220, 223, 233–234 Gorter, D. 127–129, 132, 147–149 Gosselin, K. 128, 148 Graham, S. 185 Graham, P.W. xxiv, xxix Graves, K. 220, 225, 231

640

Gray, S.M. xxvi, xxviii Greenholtz, J. 304, 307, 311 Grossman, P. 76, 88

H Hair, J.F.J. 115, 124 Hamman, D. 128, 148 Hammer, M.R. 275–276, 278 Hampel, R. 239 Han, G. 110, 124 Han, M.W. 12, 24 Hanauer, D. 128–129, 148 Hanks, J. xx-xxi, xxvii, 233 Hansen, A. 18–20, 23 Hargreaves, L. 18–20, 23 Harmer, J. 18, 23, 59, 68, 72 Harper, C. 90, 104 Hart, D. 26, 28, 40 641

Hasebe-Ludt, E. 32, 41 Hatch, J.A. 150, 276 Hawkins, M. 89, 91, 102, 104 Hawkins, M.R. xx, xxiv, xxviii, 46, 54 Hay, C. 262 Hayday, M. 26–28, 40 Hayes, D. 15, 18, 23 Hayes, J. 262 Hedge, T. 18, 23, 59, 72 Heller, M. 237 Helmke, A. 242 Herbes-Sommers, C. 97, 105 Hidi, S. 151–153, 162 Hiramatsu, S. 32, 40 Hird, B. xxvii, 169 Hoffman, E. 96, 104 Hoffman, L. 271

642

Hofstede, G. 298 Holborow, M. 39–40 Holliday, A. xx, xxvi, xxviii, 61, 72, 232, 305 Hollins, E. 90, 104 Hornberger, N.H. 237 Hovater, S.E. 288, 297 Howatt, A. 59, 72 Hoy, A.W. 118, 120, 125 Hu, G. 109–110, 124 Hu, L. 115, 124 Hunt, C. 127, 148

I Ivers, K. 256

J Jacobs, G. 203 Janusch, S. 119, 124

643

Jarmel, M. 97, 104 Jaworski, A. 4, 6, 127–130, 148 Jay, J.K. 162 Jeng, I. 257 Jenkins, J. xxiv, xxviii Jensen, J. 172 Jewitt, C. 237 Jidapa, J. 185 Jimarkon, P. 187 Jin, L. 109, 124 John-Steiner, V. 257, 261, 263 Johnson, D.M. 31, 40 Johnson, K.A. 127–128, 149 Johnson, K.E. ii, vii, xv–xvii, xx, xxiv, xxvi, xxviii, 1, 3, 6, 18, 23–24, 26, 40, 46, 54, 61, 72, 74–76, 82, 86–88, 91–93, 104, 111–112, 124, 181, 219–223, 233–234, 262–263 Johnson, K.L. 162 Johnson, T.S. 147, 149

644

Johnston, B. 127–128, 149 Jorstadt, H.L. 272 Jurchan, J. 94, 97, 104 Juster, N. 237

K Kachru, B.B. 305 Kachru, Y. xxiii, xxv, xxix Kafai, Y.B. 238 Kagan, D.M. 111, 118, 124 Kamhi-Stein, L.D. 26, 40, 288 Kang, D.-M. 16, 24 Kanu, Y. 306, 313 Kaplan, R. 26–28, 40 Karpov, Y.V. 90, 92, 102, 104 Kelly, L. 59, 72 Kennedy, C. 111, 124 Kessels, J. 147–148 645

Kidd, T.T. 239 Kim, E. 43, 45, 53–54 Kim, K.-Y. 22–23 Kim, S. 43, 54 Kim, Y. 43, 54, 242 Kingston, M. 96, 104 Kinnear, P. 30, 42, 257–259 Kinney, J. 203 Kirk, R.E. 122, 124 Kirkpatrick, A. xxiv–xxv, xxix, 16, 24 Klassen, R.M. 111, 124 Klein, F. 272 Knobel, M. 239 Ko, K. 151 Ko, K.-W. 20, 24 Koester, A.J. 190 Koetting, R. 241

646

Koh, G.H. xxvi, xxviii Korthagen, F. 147–148 Koster, B. 147–148 Krapp, A. 153 Kryszewska, H. 203–204 Kubota, R. xxv, xxix, 284 Kulm, G. 297, 299 Kumaravadivelu, B. ix, xxiv–xxv, xxix, 3, 6, 59–61, 72, 81, 88, 224 Kun, T.K.S. xxvi, xxviii, 169 Kwan, T. xxx Kwon, O. 43, 55 Kyriacou, C. 151 Kyriakides, L. 17–18, 23

L Ladson-Billings, G. 103–104, 298 Lasagabaster, D. 288

647

Lagerwerf, B. 147–148 Lai, K.-C. 20, 24, 151 Lambert, J. 241 Lamb, M. 112, 124 Lamy, M.-N. 239 Lankshear, C. 239 Lantolf, J.P. 44, 46, 55, 256–257, 260–261, 264 Lapkin, S. 26, 40 Lapp, D. 172 Larsen-Freeman, D. 70, 72 Lathathipat, D. 21, 24 Lave, J. xx, xxix, 70–72 Lave, J. 98, 101, 104, 130, 148 Law, D. xxx Leavy, A.M. 127, 148 Lee, J. 256 Lee, J.-H. 12, 24

648

Lee, L. 273 Lee, M. 204 Lehman, S. 152, 159 Leshem, S. 185 Levine, L.N. 271 Lewis, M. 65, 72 Li, Q. 110, 124 Li, X. 257–258, 297, 299 Li, Y. 297, 299 Liao, X. 118, 124 Lieberman, A. xxvii–xxviii Lightbown, P.M. 70, 72 Lim, P.C.P. 169, 181 Lindholm-Leary, K. 271 Linell, P. 186, 188, 194 Lipman, P. 238 Littlejohn, A. 68, 72, 202, 204

649

Littlewood, W. 15, 19, 24, 63, 72, 232 Liu, D. xx, xxix Liu, J. xx, xxix Liu, R. 110, 124 Lockhart, C. xx, xxx, 1, 6, 172, 179–180, 233 Loewen, S. 169 Long, M. 64, 72 Lopez-Real, F. xxx Lortie, D. 14, 24, 90–91, 104, 112, 124 Low, E.L. 128, 148 Lortie, D.C. 157, 304 Louw, S. 187 Lu, L. 257 Lu, X. 110, 125 Luk, J.C.M. 244 Luke, A. xxiv, xxix Luke, C. xxiv, xxix

650

Lytle, S.L. 219, 258

M Macalister, J. 303, 306–307, 311, 313 MacCallum, R.C. 114, 124 MacFarlane, A. 26, 28–29, 40–41 MacIntyre, D. 18–20, 23 Macneil, R. 97, 103 Malderez, A. 17, 24 Malisa, M. 241 Manion, L. 187 Manuel, J. 151 Martin-Jones, M. 237 Matsuda, P.K. 170 Maxwell, L. 89, 104 May, S. xxiii, xxix McCloskey, M.L. 271 McGrath, I. 202–205 651

McHugh, M. 89, 103 McKay, S.L. xxv, xxix, 90, 105, 172, 173 McKerrow, R.E. 12, 24 McLaren, P. xvii, 241 McLean, C.A. 298 McLoughlin, C. 204 McNabb, M. 238 McNamara, O. 127, 147 McSorley, F.A. 127, 148 Meddings, L. 65, 73 Mehra, B. 251 Meijer, P. 169 Mertova, P. 5, 6, 228–229 Meskill, C. 239, 249 Middlewood, D. 18, 24 Miller Marsh, M. 127, 149 Milton, M. xxvii

652

Miramontes, O.B. 97, 103 Mishan, F. 204 Mitchell, A. 298 Milton, M. 169 Mok, W.E. 169–170, 180–181 Morano, T. 94, 97, 104 Morgan, B. xxv, xxix, 127–128, 149 Morrison, K. 187 Morrison, T. 204 Muchisky, D. 74, 88 Muijs, R.D. 17–18, 23 Müller-Jacquier, B. 272, 274 Murphy, E. 238 Murray-Orr, A. 233 Myles, J. 297

N Nagaratnam, R.P. 305 653

Nation, I.S.P. 303 Ng, C.H. xxvi, xxviii Niehoff, B.P. 288, 299 Nietfeld, J.L. 150 Norris, J. xxiii, xxx Norton, B. xxiv, xxvii–xxviii Numrich, C. 112, 124 Nunan, D. xxv, xxix, 61, 72

O O’Donoghue, C. 185 Olafson, L. 111, 125 Oliver, C. 18–20, 23 Oliver, R. xxvii, 169 Olsen, B. 103, 105 Oskoz, A. 273 Ousley, D. 127, 148 Owens, E. 239 654

P Pacheco, M. 272 Padrón, Y.N. 272 Paesani, K. 29, 41 Paige, R.M. 272 Paine, L. 297, 299 Pajares, M.F. 182 Paley, V.G. 96, 105 Palmer, A. 97, 103 Peacock, M. 112, 125 Pearson, L. 29, 41 Pearson, S. 31, 41 Pekkanli, I. 185 Peled-Elhanan, N. 195 Pell, T. 18–20, 23 Peng, W. 110, 125 Peplau, L.A. 82, 88

655

Pennington, M. xxiii, xxix Pennycook, A. 128, 130, 149, 237 Perkins, C. 238 Peterson, P.L. 17, 24, 117, 123 Phairee, C. 185 Phipps, S. 111, 125, 169, 187 Pica, T. 203 Pile, K. 129, 149 Piller, I. 129, 149 Pinnegar, S. 257 Poehner, M.E. 256–257, 260–261, 264 Pounder, C.C.H. 97, 105 Powers, K. 272 Prenzel, M. 163 Prosser, J. 132, 149 Prusak, A. 127, 149 Punthumasen, P. 12–13, 24

656

Pushor, D. 233

R Radermacher, K. 241 Ragazzi, C. 97, 105 Raizen, S. 297, 299 Rajagopalan, K. 288 Rajani, S. 111, 124 Ramanathan, V. xxv, xxix Randall, M. 199 Reeder, K. 32, 41 Reis, D.S. viii, xxv, xxvii, xxix, 89, 93, 105, 306, 312 Renninger, K.A. 151–153, 162–163 Richards, J.C. xx–xxiv, xxvii–xxx, 1, 3, 6, 29, 31, 41, 110, 125, 172, 179–180, 233, 303 Richards, K. 31, 41 Richardson, V. 303–305 Riedl, R. 256, 259

657

Riggenbach, H. 201, 203–204 Riopel, M.-C. 127, 149 Ritter, M. 238 Rivers, W. 61, 73 Roberts, J. 16, 24, 160 Robinson, W. 17–18, 23 Rodgers, C. 128–129, 149 Rogers, T.S. 110, 125 Rodgers, T. 3, 6, 59–60, 72–73 Rodriguez, R. 96, 105 Romano, J. 128, 148 Rothstein-Fisch, C. 298 Rubdy, R. xxiii, xxx, 120, 125 Rudisill, M. 76, 87 Rueschoff, B. 238

S Sable, J. 271 658

Sachs, J. 127–128, 148–149 Sahin, M. 297, 306, 314 Sahlberg, P. 19, 24 Salvatori, M. 29, 32, 41 Samuda, V. 64, 73 Sands, D.I. 256 Sanitchon, N. 185 Saunders, W.M. 271 Savignon, S.J. xxii-xxiii, xxx Schachinger, C. 242 Schiefele, U. 151 Schmidt, R. 29, 41 Schneider, K. 97, 104 Schön, D. 241 Schoonmaker, F. 150 Schraw, G. 111, 125, 152, 159 Schwartz, D. 132, 149

659

Scollon, R. 127, 149 Scollon, S.B.K. 127, 149 Scott, K. 128–129, 149 Scott, M. 190 Scott, R. 297 Sears, D.O. 82, 88 Seidlhofer, B. xxiv, xxx, 73, 306, 312 Seliger, H.W. 187 Sengupta, S. 205 Sfard, A. 127, 149 Shavelson, R.J. 117, 125 Shen, J. 297 Sheu, C. 288, 299 Shohamy, E. 4, 6, 26, 41, 127–129, 149, 187 Short, D. 271–272, 285 Shu, D. 110, 125 Shulman, L.S. xix–xx, xxx, 222, 233–234

660

Siaya, L. 272 Sierra, J.M. 288 Silverman, D. 134, 149 Simola, H. 13, 19–20, 24 Simpson, A. 203 Skehan, P. xxiii, xxx, 67, 73, 117, 125 Sloboda, M. 129, 149, 162 Smagorinsky, P. 55, 147, 149 Smith, L. 97, 105 Smith, M. 257 So, K.-S. 20, 24, 151 Sobel, D. 256 Song, H. 239 Spolsky, B. 131, 149 Squire, J.R. 172 Steinman, L. 30, 42, 257–259 Stern, P. 117, 125

661

Sternberg, R.J. 240 Stimpson, P. xxx Stokoe, E. 4, 6, 128, 129, 130, 147 Storch, N. 232 Stoynoff, S. 77, 87–88 Strain, T.H. 97, 105 Strauss, A. 290 Street, C. 256 Stritikus, T. 32, 42 Stronkhorst, R. 12, 24 Subramanian, G. 12, 25 Suchanangthong, I. 185 Sugawara, H.M. 114, 124 Swain, M. 29–31, 40, 257–259 Swales, S. 203 Sweeney, M.S. 97, 104

662

T Tang, R. xxx Tashner, J. 256, 259 Tatham, R.L. 115, 124 Taylor, A. 150 Taylor, M. 242 Taylor, S.E. 82, 88 Tedick, D.J. 29, 42 Teemant, A. 257 Thom, L.R. 262 Thomas, L. 32, 41, 127, 147 Thomson, M.M. 150 Thornbury, S. 65, 73 Thorne, S. 261 Thornton, B. 199 Thrift, N. 129, 149 Thurlow, C. 4, 6, 127–130, 148

663

Thwaite, A. xxvii, 169 Tin, T.B. 151–152 Tomlinson-Clarke, S. 298–299 Trent, J. 127, 149 Tribble, C. 190 Trumbull, E. 272, 298 Tschannen-Moran, M. 118, 120, 125 Tsui, A.B.M. xx, xxvi, xxx, 1, 6, 117, 125 Tudor, I. 201 Turner, J.E. 150 Turnley, W.H. 288, 299 Tyson, C. 102–103

U Ur, P. 15, 25

V van den Akker, J. 12, 24

664

Van den Branden, K. xxiii, xxx Van Driel, J. 169 van Huizen, P. 93–94, 97, 105 Vanci-Osam, U. 17, 25 Vandergrift, L. 26, 28, 40 Van Lier, L. 232 van Oers, B. 93–94, 97, 105 Varghese, M. 32, 42, 127–128, 149 Veenman, S. 297 Verity, D.P. 44, 55, 256, 261, 264, 288 Verloop, N. 169 Vignola, M.-J. 26, 29, 39 Voltz, D. 297 Vygotsky, L.S. 3, 6, 44–45, 55, 92–93, 105

W Waksman, S. 129, 149 Walker, A. 19, 25 665

Walker, C.L. 29, 42 Wallace, M.J. 233 Wang, H. 297 Wang, M.C. 117, 123 Wang, Q. xxv, xxx Wang, R. 110, 124 Wardekker, W. 46, 55 Watson Todd, R. 187 Watzke, J. 75, 88, 93, 105 Waxman, H.C. 272 Webster, L. 5, 6, 228–229 Weinstein, C.S. 298–299 Wenger, E. xx, xxix, 70–72, 98, 101, 104, 130, 148 Wertsch, J.V. 44, 55, 92, 102, 105 Wessels, C. 204 Westrick, J.M. 284 Wheeler, D. 204

666

Wheeler, S. 204 Whitaker, S. 201, 203 Wieland, K. 257 Willis, J. 64, 73, 117, 125, 204 Wilson, A. 82, 88 Wiseman, A. 203 Wong, A. xxx Woods, D. xxvi, xxx, 111–112, 117 Wright, T. 201, 232 Wubbels, T. 93–94, 97, 105, 147–148 Wu, Y. 110, 125 Wu, Z. 110, 125

X Xia, J. 110, 125 Xin, G. 111, 125

667

Y Yang, W. 288 Yates, R. 74, 88 Yen, H.J.R. 288, 299 Yeomans, P. 204 Yim, S. 12, 15, 25 Youngs, C.S. 82, 88 Youngs, G.A.J. 82, 88 Yoshida, T. 220–225 Yuen, C.Y.M. 284

Z Zeichner, K. 91–92, 103, 105 Zhang, C. 297 Zhang, L.J., i, iii, v, vii, xix–xxi, xxiii, xxviii, xxx, 1, 3, 5–7, 118, 120, 125, 297 Zhang, N. 297 Zhang, Y. 284

668

Zhong, M. 110, 125 Zhou, Y. 110–111, 126 Zhu, X. 110, 125

669

Subject Index 1-year post-graduate program, 33

A Acceptance, 273, 275–276, 277–278 Acquisition, 74, 77, 81, 85 Activity/Activities, xxi–xxiv, 3, 5, 169, 170, 173, 175–180, 183, 202–209, 211–213 Activity Theory, 30–31 Action system, 30, 38 Adaptation, 273, 275–276, 277–278 Additional language(s), 26 Admissions, 34 Africa, 318 Agency, 127, 131, 147 ANOVA (analysis of variance), 115–116 Apprenticeship, 257, 263

670

Apprenticeship of observation, 304 Approaches and methods, 2–5, 59–71, 75, 77–79, 83–84, 87, 172–173, 181–182 Appropriate methodology, 61 Artifacts: material, 263; mediation through, 262–263; pedagogical, 263 Asia, xx, xxv, 318 Assessment, 173, 174, 176, 183 Attitude, 1, 3–4, 9, 11, 78, 82, 84, 87 Attitudes towards teaching, 161, 162, 163 Audio-lingual method, 114, 118,119 Authentic, 74, 78, 87 Awareness, 78, 81, 83, 86–87 Axial coding, 290–294

B Backchannel cues, 189 BANA, 305, 313 Beliefs. See teacher beliefs 671

Beliefs of trainers, 188, 195–197 Best practices, 318 BOET (beliefs about oral English teaching), 114–116

C Canada, 26–30, 32, 169, 177–181, 271–272, 274 Canadian Parents for French (CPFO), 33–34 Case study, 31, 39 China, xxv, 109–110, 112–113, 117–120 Classroom, xix, xxi–xxvi, 2, 4–5, 74–87, 169–183, 201–202, 204–206, 208, 210 CLT. See Communicative language teaching Collaboration, 259, 266 Collaborative, 205, 211 College, 76, 78, 84, 87 Collective intelligence, 240 Communication, 4–5 Communicative approach, 29

672

Communicative competence, 112, 114–120 Communicative language teaching (CLT), xxi–xxiii 15, 19, 21, 43, 46, 59–71, 110, 114, 118 Community, xix–xxii, xxiv–xxvi, 130, 133, 137–138, 142–143 Community of practice, 1–2, 130, 137 Competence, xx, xxii, xxv–xxvi, 4–5 Compliance, 127, 129, 140 Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), 5, 238, 241, 249, 252 Conceptual development, 219, 221, 223 Concept: 1–2, 4, 10, 12, 14; dialectic, 261; scientific, 260; spontaneous, 260 Conceptualization, 222 Concurrent Teacher Education Program (CTEP), 31–34, 38 Content, 74, 77, 80–81, 83, 86 Content knowledge, 307, 309, 310, 311 Context, xix–xvii, 1–5, 312–313 Convergence, 172, 182

673

Conversation, 81–86 Core French, 28, 33–34 Corpus analysis, 190 Collaborative course design, 258 Critical event, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233 Cross-cultural teaching, 288–300 Culture, xxii–xvii, 1–5, 9, 11, 13–14, 76, 81–87, 279–281, 284–285 Curriculum, xix–xx, xxv, 2–3, 5, 172–175, 180, 183 Curriculum design, 220, 221, 225 Curriculum policy, 28

D Defense, 277 Denial, 273, 275–276, 277–278 Design/Designing, 77–78, 80–81 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, 273 Dialogicity, 194–198

674

Dialogue: collaborative, 257; responsive, 257 Diary entries, 47 Discourse, 127–129, 134, 138 Display, 127–128, 130–132, 139, 141, 143, 146 Dispositions, 2–3, 6, 10–11 Disruptive innovations, 321 Distributive knowledge, 238, 240, 246, 249, 252 Divergence, 172 DMIS. See Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

E Eclecticism, 61, 65, 71 Economic development and English, 12–13 Education, xix–xxi, xxiii–xxvii, 1–6, 74–77, 81–82, 87 Educator, 74–75, 86 EFL, 3–5, 150, 151, 153 ELLs. See English language learners ELT, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 163 675

Emerging individual interests, 152, 157, 158, 159 English, xxiii–xxvi, 2–5, 74, 77, 82, 85 English language learners, 271–272 English language teacher education, 14–16 English teacher education program, 43, 44, 46–47, 48, 51, 52–55 E-portfolio, 221, 226; display, 23; working 222, 223 Enactment, 220, 225 Epistemic break, 320, 321, 322 Equality, 21–22 Error correction, 65–66 ESL, 76–79, 82–87 Expectations of teacher trainers, 188, 197–199; of teacher trainees, 185, 188, 197–199 Experience, 74–76, 78–83, 85–86 Extended French, 28, 34

F Feedback on teaching practice, 185–199 676

Field placements, 35 Field experiences, 36 Finland, 13, 19, 20 Four phase interest development model, 152 Fractal problem in teacher education, 256, 265, 266, 267 French immersion, 28, 34 French stream, 36

G Global citizen, 237, 238, 318 Global perspectives, 317 Global society, 322 Global(ization), xix, xxi, xxiii–xxvi, 1–2, 5, 39, 82–84 Goal-oriented human action, 43 Grammar-translation method, 110 Grounded theory, 289

677

H Home language, 32–33 Hong Kong, 150–151, 153–154, 162

I Identity, xxiii–xxvi, 1, 2–7, 9–11, 14, 127–149, 319 Identity-in-Practice, 127 Identity-in-Discourse, 127 IDI. See Intercultural Development Inventory Image(s), 127–134, 137–140, 142–147 Immigrant languages, 27 Incremental improvements, 321 Independent, 171, 176–178, 180 Indigenous languages, 27 Individual interest, 152 Inductive approach, 47 Initial teacher education, 150

678

In-Service, 75–77, 79, 82 Institute/Institution, 128–134, 137–141, 143–144, 146–147 Instructional contexts, 45, 46, 51–52, 54 Instructor, 78–81, 85–86 Interaction, 170, 173, 178–179, 183 Intercultural competence, 272–273 Intercultural Development Inventory, 275–276, 276–278 Internalization, 4–5, 14 Interest, 151 Interest in teaching, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 162, 163, 164 Interest development, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163 International, 82, 84, 86 Intersubjectivity, 257–259 Interview, 4–6, 130, 132–133, 140, 143, 146, 171–176, 179–180, 204, 207

679

J Japan, 12, 223, 227 Journal, 74, 79, 82–83

K Knowledge, xx–xxii, xxiv–xxvi, 74–76, 79–82, 134–136, 138, 140 Knowledge base, 26, 29, 32 Korea, South 12, 15–16, 22, 43–44, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54

L Language, 74–78, 81–86 Language policy, 31–32 Language portfolio, 32, 36 Language proficiency, 29, 309, 312; French proficiency, 29–32, 35 Language-in-education policy, 27–28 Language teaching approach. See approaches and methods Language teaching methods. See approaches and methods

680

Learn(er)/Learning, xix–xxvi, xxi– xxii, xxiv–xxv, 2–5, 74–87, 201–206, 208, 211–214 Learner-Generated, 201–205, 208, 213–214 Lesson, 75, 77–81, 86 Lingua franca approach, 16 Linguistic accuracy, 112, 114–120 Linguistic landscape, 127–131 Literacy, 171, 175 Local, xix–xxi, xxiii–xxiv, xxvi, 2, 5, 76, 78, 86 Located L2 teacher education, xv

M Malaysia, 12, 303, 306–307, 309–310, 312–313 Materials, 2, 4, 202–215 Mediating tool, 220, 233 Mediation, 4, 43, 44, 47, 48 Mediational means, 30 Mentoring, 17

681

Methods. See approaches and methods Minimization, 273, 275–276, 277–278, 283–284 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST), 43, 46, 52, 55 Minority languages, 39 Mixed Methods Data Analysis, 187–188 Model, 74, 77 Moodle, 221 Motivation, xxii, 203, 209, 213–214 Multiculturalism, policy of, 27

N National English Ability Test (NEAT), 43, 53 Narrative inquiry, 318 Native-speaker, 317, 318 Native speaker-ism, 306, 312 Narrative, 226, 227, 230, 233, 234; inquiry, 219, 220, 233, 234, 235 Need, 74–78, 81, 86–87 682

Needs analysis, 307 Negotiate(d), 127–128, 130, 137, 145–147 Negotiated syllabus, 68–69, 71 Negotiation, 127–128, 140, 147 Network learning, 239, 242, 247 New Zealand, 304, 306–313 Non-linear learning, 240 Non-native speaker, 317, 318 Non-verbal cues, 291–296

O Observation, 77, 84–85 Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (OCOL), 28 official bilingualism, 26 official Languages Act, 27 official Languages in Education Program (OLE), 27 Online: class, 263, 264, 266; course design, 257; education, 267, 258, 267; environment, 261, 263, 266; instruction, 256, 683

258, 262, 266; instructor, 258, 259; pedagogy, 256, 257, 259; pedagogy and sociocultural theory, 266; students, 257, 263; teaching, 262, 266, 267 Ontario College of Teachers, 35, 39 Open-coding, 290–291 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 20, 21

P Passion, 132, 140–141, 145 PDS, 76–77, 87 Pedagogical, 74–75, 85 Pedagogical knowledge, 307, 308, 309, 311 Periphery, 317, 318, 320 Perseverance, 140, 142, 143 Personnel policy, 28 Placement test, 34 Plan 2013, 28 Polarization, 273, 275–276, 277–278

684

Portfolio, display, 226 Posters, 137, 140, 141–142, 145–147 Post-method pedagogy, 60, 61 PPP, 60, 63–64, 66, 68 Practice, xix–xxvii, 1–5, 74–75, 78–79, 85, 87, 127, 129–130, 135, 137, 144, 147, 169–183, 205, 207 Practice teaching, 16 Practicum, 36–37, 74–77, 185–199 Preparation, xix–xx, xxiv, xxvi–xxvii, 75, 77, 82, 86 Presentation-practice-production. See PPP Pre-service teachers, 74–87, 151, 155, 160, 162, 163, 164, 185–199, 303 Primary, 201, 205, 213, 214 Principled eclecticism. See eclecticism Proactive research, 320, 321 Professional, xix–xvii, 1–4, 76, 81–82, 86–87, 127–130, 132–135, 138, 145, 147 Professional characteristics see teacher characteristics Professional development, 219, 223, 226, 234 685

Professional identity, 317 Programs, 75–78, 82, 86 Program evaluation, 307, 315 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 13, 19 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 13 Prospective teachers, 150 Pseudonyms, 290 Pupils, 201, 205–214

Q Questions, 203–209, 211–214 Quiet Revolution, 27

R Reactive research, 320, 321 Reading, 77–78, 80, 203, 205, 207, 210, 212 Reflection, 154, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 263 Reflective journal, 186

686

Reflective practice, 154 Representation(s), 127–130, 136, 140, 142–143, 146–147 Resistance, 127, 140, 146–147 Reversal, 277–278 Role of the teacher, 307, 310, 311 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 27

S Sampling: convenience sampling, 113, 290; snowball sampling, 113 Scaffoldings, 45, 51, 52, 53 School, 4–5, 74, 76–80, 82, 85–87 Second language teacher education, 152 Selective coding, 290–296 Semiotic landscape, 128–131, 146–147 Skills, xix, xxi–xxii, xxv–xxvi, 74, 85, 87 Sign(s), 128–132, 134, 139–140, 143, 145–146 Singapore, 131–132, 140, 205

687

Situational interest, 152, 157, 158, 159 SLA, 76, 81–82 Social justice, 1–4, 10, 13–15 Socioconstructivism, 239 Sociocultural, 2–3, 5, 75–76, 87 Sociocultural theory (SCT), 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 43, 44, 45–46, 47, 48, 53, 259, 264–266 Sojourn teachers, 288–300 Space, 127–130, 132, 138, 146 Spain, 242 Status of teaching, 19–20 Stereotypes, 82, 84 Strategies, 80, 83, 85 Student(s), xxi–xxiii, xxv–xxvii, 3–5, 75–87 Study elsewhere, 35–36 Systems approach, 220

688

T Target language, 29, 31 Task-based language teaching (TBLT), xxiii, 15, 59–71 Task-supported language teaching, 67 TBLT see task-based language teaching Teacher beliefs, 1, 3–4, 7, 11, 13, 60, 62, 68, 69–70, 75–76, 78, 85–86, 111–114, 116, 119, 169–183, 319, 303 Teacher characteristics: familiarity with the methodologies, 113, 114, 116–118, 120; learning experience, 111–114, 116, 118–120; overseas exposure, 113, 114, 118–120; self-perceived speaking ability, 113, 116–118; teaching experience, 111, 113, 114, 116, 118; training experience, 111, 113, 116 Teacher cognition—see teacher beliefs Teacher education, 219 Teacher education programs, 150, 163 Teacher evaluation, 17, 204–205, 209, 211 Teacher inquiry group, 220, 221, 222, 226, 233 Teacher knowledge—see teacher beliefs Teachers’ language expertise, 15–16 689

Teacher learning, 151, 162, 232 Teacher perceptions, 319 Teacher recruitment and retention, 150 Teacher research, 233, 318 Teacher self-image, 312 Teacher trainees, 150, 163 Teacher training, 185–199 Teacher voice, 319 Teaching, xix–xxi, xxiii–xxvii Teaching and social context, 18 Teaching assistants, 36 Teaching English Through English (TETE) policy, 43, 48 Techniques, 74–75, 85, 87 Technology, 320 TESEP, 305 TESOL, xx, xxiii, xxv–xxvi, 4–5, 74–88, 185 Text, 203–207, 209, 211–212

690

Textbooks, 74, 80–81 Thailand, 12, 20–22, 186, 189 Theory, 1–5, 81–82, 85–87 Theory/practice divide, 60–61 Tools, semiotic, 262, 263 Training, 74–88, 127–133, 137–138, 144–145, 147 Transformation-oriented, 322 Transformative intellectuals, xvi Transmission-oriented, 322 Trans-national education, 304–306 T-test, 115–116 Tutoring, 77–78, 85–86

U U.K., 62, 70 U.S., 89, 91, 242, 271, 288–301 Undergraduate, 75–77, 84, 86 University, 77–78, 83 691

V Validation: confirmatory factor analysis principle component analysis, 114–115

(CFA),

Visual, 127–129, 131–132, 134, 140, 146

W Well-developed individual interests, 163, 164 Writing, 203, 206–208, 211–213

Y YouTube, 176–178

Z Zone of proximal development (ZPD), 4–5, 9, 11, 43, 44

692

114;