Second

Language
Teacher
Education
Edited by
JACK C. RICHARDS
AND
DAVID NUNAN

Cambridge Language
Teaching Library

CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
 LYyUnA Crransle
Coe Society Georg
Foundation

Second Language Teacher Education

sk i
OS A On Peodes fo fre?

Obsewe? video 7 ; etna

y22 Gem # re oe Aaa
CAMBRIDGE LANGUAGE TEACHING LIBRARY
A series covering central‘issues in language teaching and learning, by authors
who have expert knowledge in their field.

In this series:
Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching by Jack C. Richards and
Theodore S. Rodgers
Appropriate Methodology and Social Context by Adrian Holliday
Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching edited by David Nunan
Communicating Naturally in a Second Language by Wilga M. Rivers
Communicative Language Teaching by William Littlewood
Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching by Christopher
Brumfit
The Context of Language Teaching by Jack C. Richards
Course Design by Fraida Dubin and Elite Olshtain
Culture Bound edited by Joyce Merrill Valdes
Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom by David Nunan
Developing Reading Skills by Francoise Grellet
Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers by Michael McCarthy
Discourse and Language Education by Evelyn Hatch
English for Academic Purposes by R. R. Jordan
English for Specific Purposes by Tom Hutchinson and Alan Waters
Focus on the Language Classroom by Dick Allwright and
Kathleen M. Bailey
Foreign and Second Language Learning by William Littlewood
Interactive Language Teaching edited by Wilga M. Rivers
The Language Teaching Matrix by Jack C. Richards
Language Test Construction and Evaluation by J. Charles Alderson,
Caroline Clapham, and Dianne Wall
Learner-centredness as Language Education by Ian Tudor
Managing Curricular Innovation by Numa Markee
Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching by Janice Yalden
Psychology for Language Teachers by Marion Williams and
Robert L. Burden
Research Methods in Language Learning by David Nunan
Second Language Teacher Education edited by Jack C. Richards and
David Nunan
Self-Instruction in Language Learning by Leslie Dickinson
Strategic Interaction by Robert J. Di Pietro
Teacher Learning in Language Teaching edited by Donald Freeman
and Jack C. Richards
Teaching the Spoken Language by Gillian Brown and George Yule
Understanding Research in Second Language Learning by James Dean
Brown |
Video in Language Teaching by Jack Lonergan
Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education by Evelyn Hatch and
Cheryl Brown
Voices From the Language Classroom edited by Kathleen M. Bailey and
David Nunan
Second Language
Teacher Education

Edited by

Jack C. Richards and

David Nunan

© CA
6)
MBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP, United Kingdom

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, United Kingdom
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia

© Cambridge University Press 1990

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception ¢

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1990

Seventh printing 1997

Printed in the United States of America

Typeset in Sabon

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Second language teacher education / edited by Jack C. Richards and

David Nunan.
p. cm.-(The Cambridge language teaching library).
ISBN 0-521-38384-6. (hardcover) — ISBN 0-521-38779-5 (paperback)
1. Language teachers — Training of. I. Richards, Jack C.
II. Nunan, David. III. Series.
P53.85.843 1990
418°.007171-dc20 89-37286
CIP

British Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Second language teacher eduation. —

(Cambridge language teaching library).
1. Modern language teachers. Professional education
1. Richards, J.C. (Jack Croft) II. Nunan, David
418’.007

ISBN 0-521-38384-6 hardback

ISBN 0-521-38779-5 paperback
Contents

List of contributors ix
Preface x1

Part! Issues and approaches in teacher education

1 The dilemma of teacher education in second language

teaching 3
Jack C. Richards

2 Beyond prescription: the student teacher as

investigator 16
Jerry G. Gebhard, Sergio Gaitan, and
Robert Oprandy

3 Activities and procedures for teacher preparation 26

Rod Ellis

Questions and tasks Sy

Part Il Investigating teachers and learners in the

classroom 41

4 Teacher observation in second language teacher

education 43
Richard R. Day

5 Action research in the language classroom 62

David Nunan

6 Understanding classroom role relationships 82

Tony Wright

Questions and tasks 98

Contents

Part Ill The practicum 101

7 Intervening in practice teaching 103

Donald Freeman

8 Interaction in a teaching practicum 118

Jerry G. Gebhard

9 A professional development focus for the language

teaching practicum 132
Martha C. Pennington

Questions and tasks 153

Part iV Supervision 155

10 Models of supervision: choices 156

Jerry G. Gebhard

11 Clinical supervision of language teaching: the supervisor

as trainer and educator 167
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers

12 “Let’s see”: contrasting conversations about teaching 182

John F, Fanselow

Questions and tasks 198

Part V_ Self-observation in teacher development 201

13 Teacher development through reflective teaching 202

Leo Bartlett

14 The use of diary studies in teacher education programs 215

Kathleen M. Bailey

15 An ongoing dialogue: learning logs for teacher

preparation 227,
Patricia,A. Porter, Lynn M. Goldstein, Judith Leatherman, and
Susan Conrad

Questions and tasks 241

vi
 Contents

Part VI Case studies 243

16 A blueprint for a teacher development program 245

Dale L. Lange

17 Developing teachers’ language resources 269

Robert Keith Johnson

18 An ethnographic approach to inservice preparation:

the Hungary file 282
Fraida Dubin and Rita Wong

19 Observing classroom behaviors and learning outcomes

in different second language programs 293
Nina Spada

Questions and tasks 311

References 313

Index 329

vil
 “4 ey

saisica &
isatan .fre
re al
a
Contributors

Kathleen M. Bailey, Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics,

Monterey Institute of International Studies, California
Leo Bartlett, Senior Lecturer, Department of Education, University of
Queensland
Roger Bowers, British Council, London
Susan Conrad, ESL teacher, Monterey Institute of International
Studies, California
Richard R. Day, Professor, Department of ESL, University of Hawaii
at Manoa, Honolulu
Fraida Dubin, Associate Professor of EFL/Education, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Rod Ellis, Head, Department of EFL/ESL, Ealing College of Higher
Education, London
John F. Fanselow, Professor, Teachers College, Columbia University,
New York
Donald Freeman, Senior Faculty, Master of Arts in Teaching
Program, School for International Training, Brattleboro, Vermont
Stephen Gaies, Professor, Department of English, University of
Northern lowa
Sergio Gaitan, Head, Resource Center, Teachers College, Columbia
University, New York
Jerry G. Gebhard, Associate Professor of English, Indiana University
of Pennsylvania
Lynn M. Goldstein, Assistant Professor, M.A. TESOL/TEFL,
Monterey Institute of International Studies, California
Robert Keith Johnson, Senior Lecturer, Department of Education,
Hong Kong University
Dale L. Lange, Professor, Second Languages and Culture Education,
University of Minnesota
Judith Leatherman, EFL teacher and teacher trainer, San Francisco,
California
David Nunan, Associate Director, National Centre for English
Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University, Sydney
Robert Oprandy, Coordinator, Master’s TESOL Program, Columbia
University, New York
 Contributors

Patricia A. Porter, Associate Professor of English, San Francisco State

University
_ Martha C. Pennington, Assistant Professor, Department of ESL,
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu
Jack Richards, Professor and Head, Department of English, City
Polytechnic of Hong Kong
Nina Spada, Assistant Professor, Department of Education in Second
Languages, McGill University, Montreal
Rita Wong, Assistant Director, American Language Institute, San
Francisco State University
Tony Wright, teacher and teacher trainer, English Language Teaching
Unit, Christ Church College, Canterbury, England
Preface

This book is an examination of major issues and practices in second

language teacher education. It is designed as a state-of-the-art account
of current approaches to second language teacher education, as well as
a source book for those designing programs and activities in classroom
observation, supervision, teacher self-evaluation, teaching practice, and
related components of either preservice or inservice teacher education
programs.
The field of teacher education is a relatively underexplored one in
both second and foreign language teaching. The literature on teacher
education in language teaching is slight compared with the literature on
issues such as methods and techniques for classroom teaching. Few of
the articles published in the last twenty years are data-based, and most
consist of anecdotal wish lists of what is best for the teacher. “Minimal
attention is paid to the development of teachers in second languages
either conceptually or research-wise” (in Lange, this volume, p. 252).
Little data have been gathered on the kinds of programs that work and
don’t work, and there has been a reluctance to subject assumptions
behind current approaches and practices to critical scrutiny.
As we move from a period of “teacher training,” characterized by
approaches that view teacher preparation as familiarizing student teach-
ers with techniques and skills to apply in the classroom, to *
ny’? characterized by approaches that involve teachers in devel-
oping theories of teaching, understanding the nature of teacher decision
making, and strategies for critical self-awareness and self-evaluation,
teacher educators need to reassess their current positions and practices
and examine afresh the assumptions underlying their own programs and
practices. This book is designed to provide the data for this kind of self-
reflection and examination. Its specific goals are:

to help define the conceptual base upon which the design of teacher
education programs in language teaching is based;
to report on significant and innovative practices in teacher education;
to describe research issues and research findings in second language
teacher education and to identify areas for further research;
to provide a source of information for teacher educators to use in
designing teacher education programs;
x1
Preface
— to serve as a text for use in courses on second language teacher
education. ;
The need for such a comprehensive overview of issues in teacher
education in second language teaching is prompted by the fact that the
field of second and foreign language teaching is constantly being renewed
both by different claims as to what teachers need to know, as well as
by different approaches to the process of developing this knowledge base
in future teachers. In planning this book, we therefore invited a repre-
sentative group of teacher educators from around the world to address
major issues in second language teacher education, in order to provide
a focused exploration of issues of both content and process in teacher
education. Although the contributors were invited to address a range of
diverse issues and practices, including the areas of observation, super-
vision, practice teaching, and self-observation, and to document suc-
cessful practices in many different kinds of teacher education programs,
a number of themes nevertheless recur throughout the collection:
— a movement away from a “training” perspective to an ‘“‘education”’
perspective and recognition that effective teaching involves higher-
level cognitive processes, which cannot be taught directly
— the need for teachers and student teachers to adopt a research ori-
entation to their own classrooms and their own teaching
— less emphasis on prescriptions and top-down directives and more
emphasis on an inquiry-based and discovery-oriented approach to
learning (bottom-up)
— a focus on devising experiences that require the student teacher to
generate theories and hypotheses and to reflect critically on teaching
— less dependence on linguistics and language theory as a source dis-
cipline for second language teacher education, and more of an attempt
to integrate sound, educationally based approaches
— use of procedures that involve teachers in gathering and analyzing
data about teaching.
The teacher education program and the teacher educator are seen to
be sources of knowledge, experience, and resources for student teachers
to use in exploring and developing their own approach to teaching. Such
a program needs to be firmly grounded in both theory and practice,
informed on the one hand by an understanding of what we know about
the nature of classroom second language teaching and learning, and on
the other by a scrutiny of classroom data, either in the form of direct
or indirect teaching experiences.

xii
Part I Issues and approaches in
teacher education

The chapters in this section of the book provide a context for the col-
lection as a whole by overviewing the major issues involved in designing
teacher education programs for second language teachers. They provide
a rationale for a range of activities and processes in teacher education,
directed both at skills and techniques as well as more abstract principles
and theory.
Richards in Chapter 1 outlines the dilemma for teacher educators
who wish to derive principles for successful practice from empirical
data rather than from speculation and who wish to equip teachers-in-
preparation with both low-inference, readily learnable classroom skills
as well as higher-level principles and decision-making skills. The dilemma
as Richards sees it is that while low-inference techniques and teaching
behaviors can be readily taught, their aggregation does not necessarily
result in good teaching. Rather, good teaching is a complex, abstract
phenomenon comprising clusters of skills, such as those relating to class-
room management and lesson structuring. These cannot readily be at-
omized into discrete skills to be mastered separately. The chapter
concludes with the suggestion that a balance needs to be struck between
holistic and atomistic approaches to teacher preparation.
In Chapter 2 Gebhard, Gaitan, and Oprandy also consider the lim-
itations of prescriptions on how to teach. They propose a multiple-
activities approach to teacher preparation through which student teach-
ers are provided with opportunities to investigate their own teaching
and the teaching of others, to carry out investigative projects in their
own classrooms, and to discuss teaching in a range of contexts. The
multiple-activities approach is particularly effectivein developing decision-
making skills. To be fully effective, however, it is necessary for the
teacher educator to be sensitive to interactions between teaching, ob-
servation, and investigation, and to make connections between these
different activities.
Ellis examines activities in teacher education in more detail in Chapter
3, and provides an analytical framework for describing and developing
activities. He distinguishes between experiential and awareness-raising
practices, and illustrates the use of a wide range of activities that focus
on different dimensions of teacher awareness and skill.
Despite difference in focus, all three chapters share some underlying
1
Part I

themes. All three point out the inadequacy of a prescriptive approach

to teacher developmentin which a set of imperatives for practice are
imported from outside the classroom. While the shortcomings of the
prescriptivist approach are aired most comprehensively by Richards, they
are also dealt with by Gebhard et al. and by Ellis. Given the inadequacies
of prescriptivism, it is incumbent upon teacher preparation programs to
work toward the ideal of the autonomous practitioner, that is, someone
who is able to draw on knowledge and skills in making on-line decisions
to solve problems that are unique to a particular teaching situation. In
practical terms, these three chapters underline the importance of pro-
viding teachers-in-preparation with a range of experiences. Each pro-
vides a unique perspective on classroom action and interaction, while
reinforcing the others to provide a much richer picture than if the class-
room were explored from a single perspective.
1 The dilemma of teacher education in
second language teaching
Jack C. Richards

One indication of the degree of professionalization of a field is the extent

to which “the methods and procedures employed by members of a
profession are based on a body of theoretical knowledge and research”
(Carr and Kemmis 1983: 12). In second language teaching, teacher
education programs typically include a knowledge base, drawn from
linguistics and language learning theory, and a practical component,
based on language teaching methodology and opportunity for practice
teaching. In principle, knowledge and information from such disciplines
as linguistics and second language acquisition provide the theoretical
basis for the practical components of teacher education programs.
One interpretation of the development of second language teaching
in the last twenty years or so is that a substantial degree of profession-
alization has taken place. Thus, the theoretical basis of the field has
moved from the study of phonetics and grammatical theory — once
considered a necessary (and sometimes sufficient) basis to launch a stu-
dent into a career as a language teacher — to include the study of ped-
agogical grammar, discourse analysis, second language acquisition,
classroom-based research, interlanguage syntax and phonology, curric-
ulum and syllabus design, and language testing. Language teaching has
achieved a sense of autonomy, with its own knowledge base, paradigms,
and research agenda.
Yet if a primary goal of graduate teacher preparation programs is the
preparation of effective language teachers, this claim to professionalism
may be misplaced. While there has been an expansion of the theoretical
concepts, research issues, and subject-matter content which constitute
much of the field, few who are engaged in developing this knowledge
base or research agenda would claim any direct relation between their
work and the preparation of language teachers. Research or theory that
deals with the nature of second language teaching per se is scant in the
professional literature. While there is a body of practice in second lan-
guage teacher education — based almost exclusively on intuition and
common sense — until recently there has been little systematic study of

1987,
Reprinted from “The dilemma of teacher education in TESOL” by J. Richards,
to Speakers
TESOL Quarterly 21, pp. 209-226. Copyright 1987 by Teachers of English
of Other Languages. Reprinted by permission.
Jack C. Richards
second language teaching processes that could provide a theoretical basis
for deriving practices in second language teacher education.
To prepare effective language teachers, it is necessary to have a theory
of effective language teaching — a statement of the general principles
that account for effective teaching, including a specification of the key
variables in effective language teaching and how they are interrelated.
Such a theory is arrived at through the study of the teaching process
itself. This theory should form the basis for the principles and content
of second language teacher education, which is thus dependent upon
the following sequence: (a) Describe effective language teaching pro-
cesses; (b) develop a theory of the nature of effective language teaching;
and (c) develop principles for the preparation of language teachers.
This chapter examines two approaches to the study of teaching from
which theories of eli as well as Uae for teacher preparation

Wea in the sa SReHORAE The second: a macro aj

proach
sholistt see
Britten 1985a, b) and involve maki g ge a izations and ences
that go Deyond wha ‘can be observed directly the way of quantifiable
classroom: processes. Both spi bates can be used to develop theories
of effective teaching and to derive principles for teacher education. How-
ever, they lead in different directions, and this is the dilemma of teacher
education.’

The micro approach to teaching and

teacher education

The principles of the micro approach to. the study of teaching were
developed from the study of the teaching of content subjects and were
only subsequently applied to the study of second language teaching. In
content-matter teaching, there is a long tradition of research into what
teacher and teaching variables account for higher levels of learner
achievement. This research began by examining teacher characteristics
such as the teacher’s interests, attitudes, judgment, self-control, enthu-
siasm, adaptability, personality, or degree of training to see bow these
factors influenced learning outcomes. Teachers were often evaluated
according to how they matched profiles of good teachers derived from
the opinions of experts, despite the fact that there was no evidence that
teachers having these characteristics were actually successful in bringing

1 The terms teacher education and teacher preparation are used synonymously through-
out this book.

4
 The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching

about higher levels of learning in their pupils (Peterson and Walberg

1979; Ornstein 1985).
In the 1950s, a different dimension was added when research began
to examine teaching r he focus was on what the
sacher does ratherer |t
teacher r the teacher is. Systematic analysis of
teacher—student interaction in the classroom, as well as other aspects of
teacher and learner behavior, led to the development of systems for the
coding and analysis of teaching in real time. T

«processes-theyemployed. Systematic observation of teachers indicated

that

when teachers are visited by observers trained to record their behavior

accurately and objectively, appropriate analysis of the records reveals stable
differences between the behaviors of teachers who are more effective in
helping pupils grow in basic skills, as well as in some affective areas. (Medley
1979216)

Effectiveness was generally measured in these studies by higher-than-

predicted gains on measures of achievement in math and reading. The
emphasis had thus shifted to the behaviors of effective teachers and the
relationship between teacher behavior (what the teacher does) and pupil
learning, This became known as process-product FESCATED. PS
By the 1970s, after a decade of systemati c observati on of teachers, a
number of aspects of effective teaching had been described and used as
the basis for models of effective teaching (Joyce and Weil 1980). Once
identified, effective teaching strategies could be incorporated into various_
kinds of training packages and pre- and posttraining differences assessed
(Mohlman, Kierstead, and Gundlach 1982).
One characteristic of effective teaching that was soon identified was
ly
the teacher’s use of questions. Questioning is one of the most common
employed techniques in the teacher’ s repertoi re. Element ary school
teaching
teachers may ask as many as 150 questions per hour when
consequently
science or social studies (Gall 1970). Researchers were
tes
interested in finding out how teachers use questions and what constitu
effective use of questions in the classro om.
are (a)
Among the aspects of question use that have been investigated
vel questi ons (low-le vel questi ons
the frequency of low-level and high-le
is, analysis,
require recall of facts; high-level questions require synthes
(b) the degree to which students
and critical thinking) (Winne 1979);
ser and Black 1985); (c) the
are encouraged to ask questions (Graes
length of
amount of wait-time teachers allow after a question (i.e., the
called upon to answer a questi on)
the pause before which a student is
used (ques-
(Rowe 1974); (d) the amount of multiple-response questions
student s may each provid e a re-
tions to which at least three or four
5
Jack C. Richards
sponse) (Gallagher and Aschner 1963); and (e) the number of times
teachers repeat their own or student questions (Orlich et al. 1985).
The quantity and quality of questioning that teachers engage in is
thought to influence the quality of classroom learning (Orlich et al.
1985). For example, higher-level questions are thought to facilitate better
learning (Redfield and Rousseau 1981). The use of student questions
rather than teacher questions orients instruction toward students. In-
creasing the wait-time after questions can lead to increased length of
student responses, a greater frequency of student questions, a greater
degree of student involvement in lessons, and more participation by
slower students (Rowe 1974). Multiple-response questions encourage
student participation in learning, while repetition of questions wastes
class time.
The study of teachers’ use of questions during instruction and the
effects of difcct pdtaas occuevon meoiendea aie
enables effective and ineffective question strategies to be distinguished.
This information can then be used to teach teachers how to use more
effective questioning strategies. A variety of training formats can be
employed to modify a teacher’s use of the desired instructional feature.
For example, the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development developed a minicourse designed to improve teachers’
questioning skills. The components are a film, which explains the con-
cepts, and training, which includes modeling, self-feedback, and micro-
teaching. In field tests with forty-eight elementary teachers, there was
an increase in redirection questions (those requiring multiple student
responses) from 26.7% to 40.9%; thought-provoking questions rose
from 37.3% to 52.0%; and the use of probing or prompting questions
increased from 8.5% to 13.9%. At the same time, teachers’ repetition
of their own questions decreased from 13.7% to 4.7%, and the an-
swering of the teacher’s own questions by the teacher decreased from
4.6% to 0.7% (Borg et al. 1970: 82).
Other dimensions of the instructional process that have been found
to make a significant contribution to student learning include time-on-
task and feedback. Time-on- or engaged
task, time, refers to time during
a lesson in which learners are actively
instruc
engaged in tional tasks
(Good and Beckerman 1978). For example, Teacher A and Teacher B
are both teaching the same reading lesson. In Teacher A’s class, learners
are actively engaged in reading tasks for 75% of the lesson, the remaining
time being taken up “with noninstructional activities such as taking
breaks, lining up, distributing books and homework, and making ar-
rangements for future events. Students in Teacher B’s class, however,
are actively engaged in reading for only 55% of the lesson. Not sur-
prisingly, studies of time-on-task have found that the more time students
spend studying content, the better they learn it. In one study (Stallings

6
 The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching

and Kaskowitz 1974), the students with the highest levels of achievement
in a reading program were spending about 50% more time actively
engaged in reading activities than the children with the lowest achieve-
ment gains. Relatively simple procedures can be used to train teachers
to monitor their own teaching (e.g., audio recording of their lessons)
and to help them increase the ratio-of engaged-time_to classroom time.
How theteacher gives feedback to students
has also been examined. _
Feedback can include praise, picking up an idea suggested by a student
and developing it, suggestions that something should be corrected, or
criticism. Berliner (1985: 147) suggests that “the first’ three forms of
feedback have been associated with more effective teachers.’ These kinds
of strategies can therefore be used as models in teacher preparation
programs. ~
While studies of this kind have identified some of the strategies em-
ployed by successful teachers in content classes, such information does
not necessarily help us identify what it takes to be an effective second
language teacher. The goals of instruction in language classes are dif-
ferent from those of content classes, and as a consequence, the strategies
adopted by teachers to achieve these goals will vary. Long and Crookes
(1986) point out the need for psycholinguistically motivated studies of
instruction in second language classrooms — that is, studies that are
informed by constructs drawn from second language acquisition theory.
A pioneering project of this kind (Long et al. 1984) focused on ESL
teachers’ question patterns and wait-time. These were selected as in-
dependent variables on the basis of their assumed contribution to the
quantity and quality of classroom language use, both of which are es-
sential to second language acquisition. The dependent variable was the
kind of input and interaction that resulted from manipulating question
d in
patterns and wait-time. A simple training module was develope
display question s —
which teachers were taught the differences between
referenti al question s
(those for which answers are known in advance) and
answers are not known) and the advantages of providing
_(those for which ime
wait-t
longer wait-time after questions. Teachers’ question use and
“it was found that the
before and after training were measured, and
that the new behavi ors
training modules affected teaching behaviors, and
believe d to be signifi cant
affected student participation patterns in ways
vi).
for these students’ language acquisition” (Long et al. 1984:

The teaching process is viewed in terms of the repertoire

employed
of strategies (e.g., control of question patterns and wait-time)
teacher preparati on 1
by the teacher during instruction. The goal of
s-in-pr e aration . This
impart these strategies as competencies to teacher
teacher
is sometimes referred to as competency- or performance-based
7
Jack C. Richards
education, which ‘assumes that the effective teacher differs from the
ineffective one primarily in [having] command of a larger repertoire of
competencies — skills, abilities, knowledge, and so forth — that contribute
to effective teaching” (Medley 1979: 15). Teaching is viewed as a kind
of
technology, and the teacher educator’s task is to to
perform according to certain rules.
In second language classrooms with instructional goals in the domain
of oral proficiency, the relevant behaviors are verbal phenomena. In
order for the researcher to be able to characterize and quantify these
behaviors in a micro approach of the kind described here, phenomena
are selected that can be readily operationalized. These are referred to as
low-inference categories, that is, categories whose sfininienSare clearly
enough sta s of behavioral characteristics that the observers

: ion types and wait-time, for example, are unambiguous

gories that are easy to identify and quantify because they reflect a
straightforward form-to-function relation. Recognition of examples of
the categories does not depend on making abstract inferences. These
low-inference categories can be contrasted with a category such as “‘in-
dicating a lack of interest in a topic,” in which the relationship between
form and function is less direct. This is a “high-inference category,” the
recognition of which depends on more abstract inferences.
ation of low-

to student learning (G. Brown 1975). Wh gories of this kind

AROSE Leneuape proficiency are fairly readily identifiable (e.g.,
teachers’ questioning patterns, the ratio of teacher talk to pupil talk), it
is not clear from current second language acquisition research or other
research that these same categories would also be relevant to the study
of instruction in second language reading, writing, or listening com-
prehension.
However, even if it were possible to identify relevant categories of
teacher behavior in different kinds or aspects of second language pro-
grams, would the nature of effective teaching have been identified? As
many observers have noted, effective.teachingzcannombe*des¢ribed-only
arse jim. OP=EORDETER
ies™(G. Brown 1975).

The notion of time-on-task, for example, is an obvious category for

identification and treatment in teacher preparation programs: It is simple
to identify and measure, and it is an aspect of teacher performance that
should be easy to modify. But time-on-task is closely related to other
dimensions of teaching, such as classroom management. A well-managed
class is one in which time is well used and in which there are fewer
distractions resulting from poor discipline or a poorly structured lesson.

8
 The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching

Classroom management, however, is not a low-inference category but

an aspect of teaching that has to be inferred by observing a teacher for
a period of time in a number of different settings. It may take different
forms, varying in nature from one teacher to another. Classroom man-
agement cannot be reduced to a few discrete components to be imparted
to teachers in a short, one-shot training session.
Likewise, even a simple skill such as the use of referential questions
versus display questions is dependent upon knowing when one kind of
question might be appropriate. As Medley (1979) observes,
the ability to ask higher-order questions is a competency; clarity is not. There
are times when higher-order questions are inappropriate, when the teacher
who can ask them should not do so; there is no time when clarity is
inappropriate. Research in teacher competencies must take account not only
of how teachers behave, but when and why they behave as they do. (p. 16)
This essentially is the dilemma of teacher education. While=low-

ing They are linked to more complex aspects of teaching,

categories in which it is much more difficult to train teachers but which
are essential to a theory of teaching. Let us now consider these aspects
of teaching.

The macro approach to teaching and

teacher preparation

An alternative approach to the study of teaching and to the development

of goals for teacher preparation programs is the examination of the total
context of classroom teaching and learning in an attempt to understand
how the interactions between and among teacher, learners, and class-
room tasks affect learning. This can be called a holistic approach, since
it focuses on the nature and significance of classroom events and invol
both Iow-inferenc e high-inference categories. Such an approach im-
and
plies different goals for teacher preparation:
Holistic approaches JPA EAE ASS alesornare
broken down into individually verifiable training objectives,ntandandthey stress
l qualities of creativi
the development of persona judgeme
onal
adaptability ... The formulaic or prescriptivist nature of a mere “vocati
contrast ed by holists
training” approach to [teacher training in TESOL] is
113)
with an “education” in more general principles. (Britten 1985a:
This view of teaching is reflected in research on effective instruction.
Blum
In a comprehensive survey of the research on effective schooling,
:
(1984: 3—6) summarizes effective classroom practices as follows
9
Jack C. Richards
1. Instruction is guided by a preplanned curriculum.
2. There are high expectations for student learning.
3. Students are carefully oriented to lessons.
. Instruction is clear and focused.
Learning progress is monitored closely.
When students don’t understand, they are retaught.
Class time is used for learning.
There are smooth, efficient classroom routines.
DNAB
ONInstructional groups formed in the classroom fit instructional needs.
10. Standards for classroom behavior are high.
11. Personal interactions between teachers and students are positive.
12. Incentives and rewards for students are used to promote excellence.
This approach to the study of teaching — often termed direct, or active,
teaching (the latter term is used here, since the term direct teaching has
also been used in connection with the DISTAR program [Carnine and
Silbert 1978], which treats only low-inference behaviors), is based on
studies of effective teachers of content subjects, particularly at the ele-
mentary level. However, there is also evidence that the notion can be
applied to certain kinds of second language settings as well (Tikunoff
1983). Rosenshine (1979: 38) describes active teaching as follows:
Direct instruction refers to academically focused, teacher-directed classrooms
using sequenced and structured materials. It refers to teaching activities
where goals are clear to students, time allocated for instruction is sufficient
and continuous, coverage of content is extensive, performance of students is
monitored, questions are at a low cognitive level so that students can
produce many correct responses, and feedback to students is immediate and
academically oriented. In direct instruction the teacher controls instructional
goals, chooses materials appropriate for the student’s ability, and paces
instructional episodes. Interaction is characterized as structured, but not
authoritarian. Learning takes place in a convivial academic atmosphere. The
goal is to move the students through a sequenced set of materials or tasks.
Such materials are common across classrooms and have a relatively strong
congruence with the tasks on achievement tests. Thus, we are limiting the
term “direct instruction” to didactic ends, that is, towards rational, specific,
analytic goals.
According to the theory of active teaching, several dimensions of teaching
account for the differences between effective and ineffective instruction
(Doyle 1977; Good 1979). These include classroom management, struc-
turing, tasks, and gréuping.
refers to the ways in which student behavior,
: U 2 O ”q 7 anGd.contre e

ner to enable teaching to take place most effectively. Good

managerial skills on the part of the teacher underlie many of the aspects
of active teaching in Rosenshine’s description. As noted previously, a

10
 The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching
category such as Ss ene
In a well-managed class, discipline problems are few, and learners are
actively engaged in learning tasks and activities; this contributes to the
motivational level and expectations for success that the teacher creates
in the class. Evertson, Anderson, and Brophy (1978) found that it was
possible to identify teachers with managerial problems in the first few
days of the school year, that such problems continued throughout
the year, and that managerial skills were related to levels of student
involvement.
A lesson reflects the concept of structuring when the teacher’s inten-
eeand abies econ et
logic structure that students can perceive. Studies of lesson protocols
indicate that sometimes neither the teacher nor the learners understood
what the intentions of an activity were, why an activity occurred when
it did, what directions they were supposed to follow, or what the re-
lationship between one activity and another was (Tikunoff, Berliner, and
Rist 1975); hence, it may not have been clear what students needed to
focus on to complete a task successfully. Fisher et al. (1980: 26) conclude
that students “pay attention more whentheteacher spends me Os
cussing the goals or structures of the lesson and/or giving directions
about what the students are to do.” Berliner (1984: 63) likewise suggests
that “structuring affects attention and success rate: It is sometimes not
done at all, sometimes it is done only minimally, and sometimes it is
overdone.”
Tasks, or activity structures, refer to activities that teachers assign to
attain particular learning objectives. For any given subject. at any given
level, a teacher usesalimited repertoire oftasks which essentiaAy delines
Swaffar, Arens, and
of teaching (see Morgan
that teacher’s methodology
1982). These might include completing worksheets, reading aloud, dic-
tation, quick writing, and memorizing dialogues. According to Tikunoff
(1985), class tasks vary according to three types of demands they make
on learners: response mode demands (the kind otf s ills they demand,
eval-
such as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis/synthesis,
m
uation); interactional mode demands (the rules governing how classroo
with the
tasks are accomplished, such as individually, in a group, or
difficult the
help of the teacher); and task complexity demands (how
learner perceives the task to be).
kinds
Teachers have to make decisions not only about the appropriate
(In what
of tasks to assign to learners, but also about the order of tasks
time should
sequence should tasks be introduced?); pacing (How much
of a task
learners spend on tasks?); products (Is the product or result
strategies (What
expected to be the same for all students?); learning
tasks?); partict-
learning strategies will be recommended for a
_materials
; and ———
pation (Should all learners be assigned the same tasks?)
sl
11
Jack C. Richards
(What sources and materials are available for completing a task?) (Tiku-
noff 1985).
The concept of task has been central to studies of active teaching; as
noted earlier, the amount of time learners are actively engaged in aca-

said to be task oriented. Effective teachers also monitor performance on

tasks, providing feedback on how well tasks have been completed.
A related dimension of active instruction is the grouping of learners
to carry out instructional tasks and the relation between grouping ar-
rangement and achievement. understands
An effective teacher how dif-
ferent_kinds
of groupings (such as seat work, pair work, discussion,
reading circle, or lecture) can impede or promote learning. Webb (1980)
found that in mixed-ability groups, the middle-ability child suffers a loss
of achievement while the low-ability child shows some gains in achieve-
ment, compared with what would be expected if both were in uniform-
ability groups. Tikunoff (1985) cites Good’s findings on groupings.
Good (1981) found that students in low-ability reading groups in the early
grades received very little challenge, thus perceiving of themselves as being
unable to read. In addition, a long-range result of interacting most frequently
with only other students of low-ability in such groups was an inability to
respond to the demands of more complex instructional activities. Ironically,
Good pointed out that the very strategy used to presumably help low-ability
youngsters with their reading problems — pull-out programs in which
teachers worked with small groups of these students outside the regular
classroom — exacerbated the problem. Demands in the special reading groups
were very different from those in the regular classroom and at a much lower
level of complexity, so low-ability students were not learning to respond to
high level demands that would help them participate competently in their
regular classrooms. (p. 56)

According to the theory of active teaching, effective instruction there-

fore depends on factors such as time-on-task, question patterns, feed-
back, grouping and task decisions, as well as on factors such as classroom
management and structuring. Some of these can be categorized as low-
inference and others as high-inference categories.
Although the concept of active teaching evolved from studies of con-
tent teaching, Tikunoff’s (1983) major study of effective teachers in
bilingual education programs has examined the extent to which the
model can also be applied to other contexts. Tikunoff suggests that three
kinds of competence are needed for the student of limited English pro-
ficiency (LEP): participative competence, the ability “to respond appro-
priately to class demands and to the procedural rules for accomplishing
them” (p. 4); interactional competence, the ability “to respond both to
classroom rules of discourse and social rules of discourse, interacting
appropriately with peers and adults while accomplishing class tasks” (p.

12
 The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching

4); and academic competence, the ability ‘‘to acquire new skills, assim-
ilate new information, and construct new concepts” (p. 4). Furthermore,
to be functionally proficient in the classroom, the student must be able
to utilize these competences to perform three major functions: (a) to
decode and understand both task expectations and new information;
(b) to engage appropriately in completing tasks with high accuracy; and
(cyto obtain accurate feedback with relation to completing tasks ac-
curately (p. 5).
In the Significant Bilingual Instructional Features descriptive study,
Tikunoff (1983) collected data to find out how effective teachers in
bilingual education programs organize instruction, structure teaching
activities, and enhance student performance on tasks. Teachers were
ppieseic weiltodetermine theirinstructional philosophiegteusls. avec
demands they would structure into class tasks. Teachers were clearly
able to specify class task demands and intended outcomes and to indicate
what LEP students had to do to be functionally proficient. Case studies
of teachers were undertaken in which teachers were observed during
instruction, with three observers collecting data for the teacher and
for four target LEP students. Teachers were interviewed again after
instruction.
An analysis of data across the case studies revealed a clear linkage between
(1) teachers’ ability to clearly specify the intent of instruction, and a belief
that students could achieve accuracy in instructional tasks, (2) the
organization and delivery of instruction such that tasks and institutional
demands reflected this intent, requiring intended student responses, and (3)
the fidelity of student consequences with intended outcomes. In other words,
teachers were able t ibe clearly what instruction would entail, to
operationalize these Coie and to produce the desired results in terms
of student performance. (p. 9)
Tikunoff’s (1983) findings confirm that the concept of active teachin
can be used to account for effective teaching in bilingual education

proach to the study of effective teaching to other kinds of language

programs. What is the equivalent of active teaching in an on-arrival
second language program, an advanced speaking class, or a secondary-
level foreign language reading class? Once these questions have been
answered, the issue arises of the application of the findings to teacher
preparation.

Applications for teacher preparation

Although some aspects of effective teaching can be operationalized and

d, there
presented to teachers-in-preparation as techniques to be mastere
13
Jack C. Richards
is more to teacher preparation than skills training. McIntyre (1980)
observes that :
both managerial skills and direct instruction are defined only in terms of
high-inference variables... If this is generally the case, its implication for
teacher educators is that we cannot hope to train student teachers; whatever
one’s criteria of effectiveness, the components of effective teaching cannot be
spelt out in operational terms, but are crucially dependent on the teacher’s
qualities. (p. 295)

For the development of these qualities, activities are needed that move
beyond “training” and that seek to develop the teacher’s awar
‘
d
control of th principlesyinderlying Sisceive planning,
pL organization,
OneNRE:
management, an éry of instruction (Elliot 1980). Both the micro-
and SHaciGRHENSIONY OPSLcRIg ME be addressed (Larsen-Freeman
1983).
Activities and learning experiences in the first domain — the micro-
perspective — reflect the training view of teacher pr ion: Teaching
is broken down raigdiscrete cadteainable alls. suchas setting up
small-group activities, using strategies for correcting pronunciation er-
rors, using referential questions, monitoring time-on-task, explaining
meanings of new words, or organizing practice work. Training experi-
ences that can be provided for the novice teacher include the following:

1. Teaching assistantships — assisting an experienced teacher in aspects

of a class, such as using classroom aids or administering tests
2. Simulations — participating in simulated classroom events, for ex-
ample, to develop the ability to handle discipline and management
problems
3. Tutorials — working as a tutor, for example, in a writing laboratory,
to gain experience in the use of feedback techniques
4. Workshops and minicourses — participating in training sessions fo-
cusing on specific instructional techniques, such as use of wait-time
5. Microteaching — presenting structured mini-lessons using specific
strategies and techniques
6. Case studies — observing films or videos in which desired teaching
strategies and behaviors are demonstrated.

Activities in the second domain — the macroperspective — reflect a

view of teacher preparation as education and focus on clarifying and
elucidating the concepts and thinking processes that guide the effective
second language teacher. Activities and experiences are needed that help
the novice teacher understand and acquire the means by which the
effective teacher arrives at significant instructional decisions. Learning
experiences include the following:
14
 The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching

1. Practice teaching — participating in a variety of practice teaching

experiences that are closely supervised by a skilled teacher
2. Observation — observing experienced teachers in a focused way and
then exploring with the teacher, in a follow-up session, why things
happened as they did and attempting to determine the kinds of con-
scious or unconscious decision making that guided the teacher
3. Self- and peer observation — reflecting on self- and peer performance
in actual teaching situations, through audio or video recordings, in
order to gain a deeper awareness of the processes and principles being
employed
4. Seminars and discussion activities — reflecting on the degree to which
one’s own experience as a student teacher relates to theory and to
the findings of relevant research.
These and other activities are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, and also
in Part V.
Such an approach to teacher preparation requires changes in the role
of both student teacher and teacher educator. The student teacher must
adopt the role of autonomous learner and researcher, in addition to that
of apprentice. The role of the teacher educator is no longer simply that
of trainer; he or she must guide the student teacher in the process of

quired as abasis for further development. of “teaching as a craft” or

This approach rejects the philosophies
“teaching as common sense,” both of which deny the significance of the
principles on which good teaching depends. The view of teacher devel-
opment described here attempts instead to use theory to guide and il-
luminate the meaning of observatio n and practical experience. In short,
the intent of second language teacher education must be to provide
opportunities for th vice to acquire the skills and competencies of
effective teachers and to he working rules that effective teach-
ers use.

15
 2 Beyond prescription: the student
teacher as investigator
Jerry G. Gebhard, Sergio Gaitan, and Robert Oprandy

Teacher educators are often viewed as authorities who are expected to

prescribe what teachers should do to be effective. The role of the student
teacher is to listen, accept, occasionally give an opinion, but ultimately
to follow a prescription, or at least give this impression.
As Gebhard (this volume, Chapter 10) points out, there are several
limitations to such a prescriptive approach to teacher preparation. Some
teachers, especially those with some experience, do not want to be told
how to teach, and may therefore resent the educational experience.
Another problem with the use of prescription is the lack of convincing
research evidence that there is a “best” way to teach. Although there
are creative and effective ways to teach, as Dunkin and Biddle (1974)
and Fanselow and Light (1977) point out, there is little proof that any
one way of teaching is better in all settings than another. ——~S
SATHIed ane perkspe ioe UMMA GFeELeNE ane prescription
keeps the responsibility for decision making with the teacher educator,
thus lessening the likelihood that student teachers are being prepared to
assume the responsibilities for what goes on in their classrooms. To
assure that student teachers are being prepared to enter the real world
of teaching, as Fanselow (1987) and Jarvis (1972) advocate, teacher
educators need to shift responsibility for decision making to classroom
_teachers, providing them with investigative skills and methodology for
making decisions about what and how to teach. In this chapter we are
concerned with this third problem of how teacher educa rovide
opportunities for student teachers in preservice foreign and-second lan-
- guage teaching Pe ee ee they need to
make decisions as responsible language teachers. Ongoing observation
and Gebhard’s (1985) research have shown that opportunities to gain
these skills can be provided through a multiple-activities approach to
teacher preparation. The activities discussed in this chapter include:
1. teaching a class
2. observing the teaching act
3. conducting investigative projects of teaching
4. discussing teaching in several contexts.
Reprinted with permission from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-
guages, Inc. (ACTFL), publishers of Foreign Language Annals.

16
 The student teacher as investigator

We are not suggesting that if teacher educators simply use these four
activities, student teachers will automatically gain the ability to make
decisions about what to do in their classrooms. As Gebhard (1985) points
out, interaction within these activities between the teacher educator and
student teachers, or between the student teachers themselves, can either
provide or block opportunities for student teachers to gain the skills
needed to investigate the teaching processes and make decisions about
what to do next in the classroom. Thus, interaction between participants
within any of these activities should be an ongoing consideration. Like-
wise, student teachers should have opportunities to relate their expe-
rience in one activity to that in another. It is through relating one
experience to another that awareness of teaching behavior and teaching
possibilities seems to evolve.

Activities

Teaching a class
Most teacher educators will point out the value of providing a “real”
classroom setting for student teachers in which the students’ goal is to
learn the foreign language. Teacher educators may provide such a con-
text through their own or an affiliated institution, or require student
teachers to teach in a public institution.
If a real teaching context is not possible, one established way to
rovide classroom teaching experience is to use microteaching in which
1 Student teachers themselves act as foreign language students. Since
the student teachers are most likely invested in the language being taught,
they RE Er oe
in using the target language. In this way the microteaching experience
becomes a “real” as opposed to a “simulated” experience. Of course,
time needs to be considered, especially for large classes. One way to
work with a large class is to have several microteaching sessions going
on simultaneously.
One obvious benefit of teaching a class is that opportunities are pro-
vided for student teachers to use their accumulated knowledge to make
instructional decisions. The following example from an ESL class helps
to illustrate this point (Gebhard 1985). In the first scene the student
In
teacher, June, was not successful in her treatment of Anna’s error.
June was successfu l because she had
the second scene, two weeks later,
changed the way she dealt with the learner error.
Scene 1
Anna: I have only two sister.
June: Uh-huh.
17
Jerry G. Gebhard, Sergio Gaitan, and Robert Oprandy

Anna: I have no brother.

June: Two sisters (June uses rising intonation)
Anna: Because my mother she dead when I was three years old.
June: She died when you were three?
Anna: Yes. She dead when I was three years old.

Scene 2.
Anna: When the house built?
June: When was.
Anna: When was?
June: When was. When was.
Anna: When was the house built?
June’s change included treating the error directly after it was made,
using shorter sentences, and stopping her sentence at the point of the
enor However, thechaige Junemadeappears tobeunusual, AdiFines
‘and Ahlbrand (1972), Long (1983), and Shapiro-Skrobe (1982), among
others, have discovered in their research, teachers, even with training,
do not change the way they teach, but continue to follow the same
pattern of teaching. Why, then, was June able to change the way. she
treated Anna’s (and other students’) errors? oo
We believe she was able to make these changes because she was not
only given the opportunity to teach a class, but was also provided with
coinplementary activities throitah afta shetaiid GasSee ae
and subsequently make decisions about her teaching behavior. In Fanse-
Favs (1987stwords: Jane hadtheoppornuitity ia“@ondituct recon-
struct and revise teaching.”’ Through teaching a class, she gained the
chance to put her ideas about teaching into practice, but she also had
opportunities to observe others teaching their classes, to examine how
they worked with students in error correction, and to discuss her teach-
ing, including when and how to treat errors, with peers and with the
teacher educator. These activities gave her the freedom to reconstruct
her ideas about what to do next in the classroom. She was doing what
Barnes (1976) observed successful learners do, that is, she was developing
her own ideas and making decisions as they relate to previous knowledge
and experience.

Observing the teaching act

One activity in which June and other student teachers have participated
is observation through classroom visitation and video recordings. Stu-
dent teachers and teacher educators have reported two connected ben-
efits of observing the teaching act. First, some student teachers have

18
 The student teacher as investigator

reported that observation allows them to see teaching differently. For

example, one student teacher reported: ‘‘My training in observation has
given me many different views of teaching. I used to look at only the
content of a lesson. Now I look at and am aware of how that lesson is
- being taught, what teachers and students are doing, and what media are
_ being used by the teacher.” Second, student teachers have reported that
- observation gives them fresh ideas about what they can do in classrooms.
As one student teacher pointed out: “Observation has made me realize
that there are unlimited ways to teach. I can see that teaching is made
up of behaviors and consequences of behaviors and that I am not limited
. in the behaviors I can use in the classroom.”
However, other student teachers state that they are blocked from
getting much out of the observation because, as one noted, “There is so
much going on (in the class), I have no idea what to look at.” In order
to get a different perspective on observation, these and other student
teachers say it is useful to learn a system of observation, and there are
several approaches to the observation act. (Observation systems are
discussed in detail by Day in Chapter 4.)
In the 1960s and early 1970s, Flanders’s sign system was adapted by
foreign and second language teacher educators such as Moskowitz
(1971) and Wragg (1970). In the use of this system, observers place a
tick every few seconds next to an observed behavior, such as “silence,”
“teacher asks question,” “teacher praises student.” However, as LG
Bailey (1977) points out, this system has limited utility because it is
teacher centered and carries with it the belief that a nondirective ap-
proach is the most effective way to teach. Since foreign and second
language teaching methodology has become more varied, this instrument
may fail to capture some classroom interaction, such as that which occurs
during small-group activities.
Another instrument through which student teachers can systematicall
observe classroom interaction 1s ae which as its name
indicates, contains lists of behavioral categories through which observed
events are classified. One such system is COLT (the Communication
Orientation of Language Teaching) by P. Allen, Fréhlich, and Spada
(1984; see also Spada, this volume, Chapter 19). Another is Ullmann
and Geva’s (1982) TALOS (Target Language Observation Scheme). An-
other, which we have used over the past few years, is Fanselow’s FOCUS
(Foci on Communication Used in Settings).
fy_
The major categories in FOCUS allow the student teacher to identi
the source and target of commun icatio n (teacher , student , group, book,
map, movie, etc.), the purpose of communication (structure, solicit, re-
spond, react), the media used to communicate t (linguistic,
nonlinguistic, paralinguistic, silence), the manner in which the media are
SS

19
Jerry G. Gebhard, Sergio Gaitan, and Robert Oprandy

used to communicate content (attend to, present, characterize, repro-

duce, relate, set), and the areas of content that are communicated (study,
life, procedure).
Some student teachers state that this system of observation keeps their
interest because they can study their teaching through any one category
or across several categories and subcategories, as well as consider the
consequences for student interaction of what and how they teach. Other
teachers have found the use of an observation system distracting, es-
pecially if they have not been trained in its use. As one student teacher
stated, ‘““When I go to observe I can hardly make a decision. It’s dis-
tracting to me. I can’t even make myself begin to practice. Partly I don’t
want to do it, but it also feels like it gets in the way.’’ When student
teachers appear to lack knowledge and interest in how to use a system,
we have found it useful to meet with these student teachers and provide
them with special opportunities to describe teaching from videotapes of
classrooms in process. It is possible that the more success student teachers
have in recognizing categories of behavior through observation, the more
interest they will gain in using an observation system to study teaching,
including their own teaching.
Whether or not student teachers find the use of an observation system
interesting is perhaps not as important as the benefit such a system
appears to have for most student teachers, that is, as a metalanguage
for discussion. During discussions of teaching, vague language such as
“The students show enthusiasm” or ““There is rapport” is replaced by
a language of observation which allows participants to use specific terms
through which communication can be easier and more effective.
As Long (1983) points out, classroom-centered research (CCR) offers
another means through which student teachers can observe teaching,
and we have discovered that some student teachers gain much from
studying the research of others and using research observation categories
and findings as a lens through which to observe their own and others’
instruction. For example, some student teachers have used Rowe’s
(1986) research on “‘wait-time”’ as a means through which to view class-
room interaction!Rowe studied the amount of time teachers waited for
a response to their questions before repeating the same question or asking
a new one, as well as the amount of time between getting a response to
a question and reacting to it. She discovered that teachers generally wait
less than one second, and that when the teacher increases wait-timeto
three or more seconds, the pattern of communication in the class changes
OF Guesto 0 to each other, and
they react to others’ responses more frequently. As a consequence of
looking at wait-time, some student teachers have been able to examine
their own use of wait-time and have successfully changed their use of it

20
 The student teacher as investigator

in their teaching. More importantly, they have also realized the impor-
tance of using others’ research as a basis for investigating their own.

Conducting investigative projects

A system of observation also sets the groundwork for investigative proj-
ects, which can provide student teachers with the methodology for un-
derstanding their own teaching processes and behaviors. (See Part II of
this book for fuller discussion.) One aim of investigative projects is to
provide the opportunity for student teachers to gain new awareness of
the interaction that goes on in their classrooms as well as to consider
how they would approach a lesson differently. Topics student teachers
have worked on include:
— What makes some directions I give in the target language clearer than
others? Can I determine the features of clear directions and set guide-
lines for improving the directions I give?
— What are different ways I can facilitate classroom activities? How
productive are group problem-solving activities in which the target
language is used? How effective is pair work? What are the conse-
quences of these activities for student interaction?
— How do I use classroom space? What different seating arrangements
are possible? What happens when I change the seating arrangements?
— How much time in the classes I teach is spent “‘on task’? What can
I do to get students to stay “on task’?
— How do I treat students’ errors? What different ways exist for treating
students’ errors? How do I know if students pay attention to the
corrections? S$
ohe
Teacher educators can make the process of conducting investigations aoe
easier for student teachers by providing them with guidelines, One set
of guidelines, adapted from Fanselow (1987a), follows: (1) select an
aspect of your teaching you would like to learn more about; (2) videotape
or audiotape classroom interaction that centers on these aspects of your
teaching; (3) transcribe the parts that are pertinent; (4) code the inter-
action using an observation system or through categories you have de-
signed for the study; (5) study the coding for patterns and consequences
of behaviors; (6) decide on a change in teaching behavior that will break
the pattern; (7) implement the change while taping the classroom in-
teraction, and again transcribe, code, and study the interaction for pat-
terns and consequences; (8) finally, compare the consequences in the use
of the old pattern with the new one.
Student teachers who follow these guidelines sometimes gain imme-
diate insight into their teaching, much of which is, incidentally, not

21
Jerry G. Gebhard, Sergio Gaitan, and Robert Oprandy

directly related to their investigative topic. For example, the student

teacher who asked, “‘How productive are group problem-solving activ-
ities in the target language?” not only discovered that students solicit
much information from each other in the target language related (and
unrelated) to the problem-solving activity, she also found that when she
wrote instructions down, students in her class would get into the task
more quickly.
However, perhaps a more important benefit of this approach is the
insight student teachers gain into how they can investigate their teaching,
Ort TarGHSyiGa oSoTtlEaT TEDcDORCEELevesicle aetna enate ee
around. As Freire (1970) and Jarvis (1972) point out, this ability some-
times empowers teachers. They become free from oppression, knowing
that they have the power to decide what and how to teach based on an
awareness of classroom interaction and its consequences.
Possible insights into the process of investigation include the point
that description of interaction, not judgments about it, is important;
that much can be gained by studying the interaction for patterns, and
patterns can sometimes be more easily recognized by coding the inter-
action through an observation system; that teaching and changes in
teaching behavior require the teacher to make decisions, and these de-
cisions can be made through investigation plus common sense.

Discussing teaching in several contexts

Discussion about teaching is the fourth component of a multiple-
activities approach to teacher preparation, and it can take place in a
number of required settings, such as in a seminar, during supervisory
conferences, in an observation room, or through journal correspondence
between the student teachers and the teacher educator. Discussions can
also take place in less formal contexts, such as among student teachers
over lunch, in the student lounge, or simply in the hallway. Such settings
are important because they provide opportunities for student teachers
to discuss not only their teaching, but also their observations, investi-
gations, and other experiences. Through this process, they have the
chance to relate their experiences to those of others, to gain awareness
of possible teaching behaviors, and to consider their own teaching
decisions.
To provide contént for discussion, student teachers can be asked to
supply their findings from classroom observations and investigations as
well as share video- and audiotapes of their teaching, transcripts of short
scenes from these tapes, and lesson plans. We have discovered that if
discussion centers on a description of teaching rather than on judgments,
it can be quite productive, often allowing student teachers to enter

Z2
 The student teacher as investigator

into a problem-solving process in which they share ideas about how to

solve a problem and work together in a decision-making process.
For example, in an ESL practicum seminar, one student teacher, Mon-
ica, brought in an audiotape of her teaching. She gave the following
background information: “I told them to go home and think of several
things they like and several things they don’t like about living in the
United States. When they came in today I had them write them down
on the board. I then went to the board and corrected each sentence.”
The seminar group was then asked to listen to a section of the class-
room interaction. Here is part of the transcription:

Scene 3
Monica: Jose, this is your sentence?
Jose: Yes.
Monica: (Reads) ‘United States people have much freedom.” Here, ah,
you should say, “American people.” (Writes the correction)

Using FOCUS, the class studied the interaction. They decided that the
teacher was the source of all the questions (solicitations) and that the
students simply responded and then listened to the correction that the
teacher presented. Monica then expressed her feelings about the expe-
rience: “It was such a bummer to have to go up and correct each sentence
and to show each person where they were wrong. They were all just
sitting there like, ‘Oh, what mistake did I make?’ How can I teach this
lesson without laying this thing on them that their language is bad?”
In response, one student teacher suggested that Monica be silent and
let the sentences on the board structure the activity. Students might start
correcting them by themselves. Another suggested that she manipulate
the source and target of communication by having students form groups
to first decide if the sentences are correct and then to make necessary
changes. In this way, students, rather than the teacher, solicit information
from the teacher and from each other.

_need not be done only in aseminar. During Supervisory conferences the

student teacher and supervisor can generate choices for the student
teacher to try out in class. A clinical process of supervision (Abbott and
Carter 1985) can be implemented in which both supervisor and student
teacher determine the categories for observation. Based on a description
of teaching the supervisor obtains through obsérvation, the two can
generate alternative ways to teach the same lesson or a part of it. Student
teachers can implement small changes in their teaching based on the
discussion and the supervisor can again observe the student teacher’s
class, followed by another discussion. In this way, the student teacher
can become more aware of options in teaching behavior, share in the
23
Jerry G. Gebhard, Sergio Gaitan, and Robert Oprandy

examination of purposes and consequences of particular choices, and

gradually become an independent decision maker.
We have found that there are behaviors that the teacher educator or
supervisor can use to promote opportunities for student teachers to share
openly their ideas about teaching and gain new insights into teaching
behaviors which allow them to expand their decision-making abilities.
First, it appears that ge i
than make judgments about teaching or the student teachers, there is
reater willingness on the part of some student teachers to share their
Wee When student teachers feel that they or their teaching are being
constantly judged, they hold back their ideas. Second, the teacher ed-
ucator’s or supervisor’s silence provides opportunities for discussion.
Although some student teachers are at first uncomfortable with silefice,
most find that it provides them with chances to slow down and to
consider their own and others’ ideas without the threat of having to be
constantly involved in talking or listening to talk.
Third, the teacher educator or supervisor can help student teachers
to gain new insights into teaching by allowing them chances to reprocess
ideas they have about teaching. This can be done by the teacher educator
by remembering questions student teachers have raised in previous dis-
cussions and bringing them into the discussion at appropriate times. For
example, June had shown concern over the treatment of student errors.
During a discussion she had asked, “How can I get students to care
about their language errors?” In order to provide June with more op-
portunities to consider her question and make decisions based on it, the
teacher educator sometimes, as Gebhard (1985) observed, guided the
discussion toward this topic, giving June the opportunity to bring in her
teaching, observation, and reading experiences that had occurred since
she had asked that question. This approach gave her the opportunity to
consider decisions she had made about error treatment and to formulate
new questions.

Conclusion

A multiple-activities approach to foreign-language teacher preparation

provides student teachers in preservice programs with opportunities to
gain the investigative and decision-making skills they need to function
as responsible and autonomous teachers. Although each of the four
activities discussed — teaching a class, observing the teaching act, con-
ducting investigative projects of teaching, and discussing teaching in
several contexts — is valuable in its own way, student teachers will
possibly develop stronger decision-making skills if they are given chances
to process their teaching through all the activities. Opportunities for

24
 The student teacher as investigator

student teachers to develop decision-making skills can be blocked as

well as facilitated through the type of interaction that goes on within
each activity. Teacher educators need to be aware of how the interaction
within and across each activity can enhance or hamper opportunities
for student teachers to gain the investigative and decision-making skills
they need to become more creative, autonomous teachers.

25
3 Activities and procedures for
teacher preparation
Rod Ellis

The last few years have seen a number of teachers’ manuals for preparing
teachers of English as a second or foreign language (e.g., Abbot and
Wingard 1981; Gower and Walters 1983; Harmer 1983; Hubbard et
al. 1983; Willis 1983). These manuals vary in their intended audiences
and also in their approaches, but in their different ways they all provide
information about both the theory and practice of second language
teaching. This information is presented in a variety of ways. (1) There
are expositions of theoretical principles and procedures for carrying out
different kinds of lessons. (2) There are examples of lesson plans and
of teaching materials. (3) There are activities for teachers-in-preparation
to carry out in order to explore and evaluate different aspects of second
language teaching. These manuals, then, not only inform us about the
practice of second language teaching but also try to involve student
teachers actively in the process of making decisions about what to teach
and how to teach it.
The main purpose of this chapter is to examine in some detail what
teacher preparation activities consist of. By providing an analytical
framework for describing the various kinds of activities that can be used
and the different procedures for exploiting them, I hope to encourage
their use in teacher preparation courses and also provide practical in-
formation about how to devise and use activities.
There are three parts to this chapter. The first consists of a schematic
outline of teacher preparation practices. This is intended to provide the
context for the second part, in which a framework for describing teacher
preparation activities is presented. This part also includes an example
of an activity. In the third part, a list of teacher preparation procedures
is given, together with a sample of a plan for exploiting an activity.

An outline of teacher preparation practices

Teacher preparation practices, in the first instance, can be divided into

those that are experiential and those that raise awareness. Experiential
——— aeae

Copyright Oxford University Press 1986. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University

Press.

26
 Activities and procedures for teacher preparation

practices involve the student teacher in actual teaching. This can occur
through “teaching practice,” where the student teachers are required to
teach actual students in real classrooms, or in “‘simulated” practice, as
when the student teachers engage in peer teaching. Awareness-raising
practices are intended to develop the student teacher’s conscious un-
derstanding oftheprinciples underlying secondlanguage teaching and
or the practical techniques that teachers can use in different kinds of
lessons. | i yaa is
Two points need to be made about the distinction between experiential
and awareness-raising practices. First, the two types are not mutually
exclusive. Teacher preparation will often involve both kinds, although
experiential practices are probably more common in preservice courses,
while awareness-raising practices predominate in inservice courses. This,
however, is perhaps more the result of convenience and tradition than
principled decision making. Second, experiential and awareness-raising
practices do not need to be separated; they can be combined in a single
activity. This occurs, for instance, when teaching practice is used not
only to develop the student teacher’s practical classroom know-how,
but also to develop understanding of particular issues through reflection
and evaluation. The broken line in Figure 1 is meant to represent the
potential integration of the two types of practices.
The purpose of this chapter is not to discuss the relative merits
of the two kinds of practices. The assumption that underlies the use of
awareness-raising practices, however, is that the practice of actual teach-
ing can be improved by making teachers aware of the options open to
them and the principles by which they can evaluate the alternatives. It
js not known to what extent this assumption is justified. Do teacher
educators, in fact, really influence what teachers do in the classroom by
making them think about the principles and practice of teaching in
sessions remote from the classroom? It is all too easy to assume that a
better-informed teacher will become a better teacher. It would be com-
forting if there were some clear evidence to support this assumption.
The focus of this chapter is on awareness-raising practices. These
involve the use of teacher preparation activities and teacher preparation
procedures. Teacher preparation activities consist of the materials that
the educator uses in his or her program; they correspond to materials
for use in classroom language teaching. Each activity will give the student
teacher a number of tasks to perform. These tasks are likely to be based
. It
on some data, which constitute the raw material of the activities
follows that activities can be described by specifying the different ways
in which data can be provided and the different kinds of operations that
the student teacher is required to carry out in the tasks based on the
data. Teacher preparation procedures constitute the teacher educator’s
methodology for using activities in teacher reparation sessions. Just as
i]
 Rod Ellis

Experiential
(e.g., teaching practice)

Teacher | Data
preparation |
practices : Activities
' Tasks
Awareness-
raising

Procedures

Figure 1 An outline of teacher preparation practices

the teacher needs to draw up a lesson plan for exploiting teaching ma-
terials, so the teacher educator needs to draw up a preparation plan
incorporating appropriate res for exploiting different teacher
“preparation activities. Figure 1 diagrams the various teacher preparation
practices that have been described.

A framework for describing teacher

preparation activities

The purpose of a descriptive framework for teacher preparation activities

is not to suggest what “‘good” activities consist of (i.e., no evaluative
criteria are suggested), but to identify the various options available to
the teacher educator. Teacher preparation activities can be described by
detailing (1) the different ways in which data can be provided and (2)
the different kinds of tasks that student teachers can be asked to perform.

Ways of providing data

1. Video or audio recordings of actual lessons. Recordings are poten-
tially rich sources of data, as they can provide samples of real teach-
ing. Ideally they should be made in the classroom contexts in which
the student teachef will have to teach. There is, however, an excellent
collection of video material, covering a variety of teaching contexts,
available in the British Council’s Teaching and Learning in Focus,
and similar resources have been prepared by other institutions, such
as the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
in Australia. The British Council collection consists also of a number

28
 Activities and procedures for teacher preparation
of edited lessons and some thematic modules dealing with a number
of key issues, such as class management and dealing with errors.
The video materials are supported by handbooks that suggest dif-
ferent ways of using the materials. Teacher educators who wish to
make their own video materials should consider who best to focus
the camera on — the teacher, the students, an individual student, or
a combination of these. The choice will be determined by how the
material will be used (i.e., the tasks involved). Teacher educators
will also need to consider whether the video or audio material is to
consist of whole lessons or selected extracts.
. Transcripts of lessons. Another way of presenting classroom data
is by preparing transcripts of lessons, in part or in whole. One
advantage that transcripts have over video or audio material is that
they permit detailed inspection and analysis more easily. There is,
of course, nothing to prevent the teacher educator from using video
or audio materials in conjunction with transcripts.
3. Classroom teaching.
4. Peer teaching.
os Microteaching.
Activities 3, 4, and 5 are all experiential. That is, they can be used to
give the student teacher direct experience of teaching and do not need
to be accompanied by awareness-raising tasks. However, they can also
serve as further ways of providing data about teaching for analysis and
evaluation.
6. Readings. Student teachers can be provided with readings from
articles and books on second language teaching as ends in them-
selves. Alternatively, these readings can be used as a basis for a
range of interesting tasks.
Textbook materials. Samples of teaching materials — both good and
bad, appropriate and inappropriate — can be exploited as data for
awareness-raising activities in a variety of ways.
Lesson plans and outlines. Apart from being invited to prepare
complete lesson plans, student teachers can be asked to perform
various tasks based either on “authentic” lesson plans or on lesson
plans that have been specially designed to illustrate particular points.
Case studies. Case studies are another valuable source of data. They
can be studies of particular classes, of individual teachers or learners,
or of whole courses. Williams (1985) provides two case studies of
reading programs that are good examples of the kind of raw material
that can be utilized in teacher preparation activities.
10. Samples of students’ written work.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but to provide an indication
of the breadth and variety of the data that the teacher educator can use
29
Rod Ellis

for designing teacher-preparation activities. Any single activity may

make use of just one data type or a combination of types.

Different kinds of tasks

The list of tasks that follows takes the form of a number of “‘operations”’
which the student teacher can be asked to perform on whatever raw
data are provided. An example of the kind of rubric needed for each
operation is given to clarify what is involved in each task.
1. Comparing. E.g., “Look at the two lesson plans provided and
decide which one you prefer and why.”
2. Preparing. E.g., “Prepare a marking scheme that you could use to
correct the attached sample of students’ written work.”
3. Evaluating. E.g., “After watching the video extract, evaluate the
effectiveness of the teacher’s treatment of oral errors, using the
criteria supplied.”
4. Improving. E.g., “Read the case study of a reading program, paying
particular attention to the author’s own evaluation. What sugges-
tions can you make for improving the program?”
5. Adapting. E.g., ““Adapt the following language exercise in order to
introduce an information gap.”
6. Listing. E.g., “Look through the transcript of the lesson provided
and make a list of all the different kinds of errors the students make.”
7. Selecting. E.g., ““Now that you have listed all the different kinds of
errors in the transcript, decide which errors you would choose to
correct if you were the teacher and say why.”
8. Ranking. E.g., “Look through the language teaching materials at-
tached and then rank them according to how ‘communicative’ you
think they are.”
9. Adding/completing. E.g., “Read through the article, listing the prin-
ciples for the teaching of reading. Are there any additional principles
you would like to add?”
10. Rearranging. E.g., “Look at the video recording of a teacher or-
ganizing group work. Make a list of the different steps the teacher
follows. What changes to the order of these steps would you
recommend?”
Other operations are doubtless possible. Once again, the aim has been
to illustrate the range of possibilities. Any single training activity can
make use of just a single task or a series of tasks.

A sample teacher preparation activity

Tables 1 and 2 illustrate how data can be combined with operations to
devise teacher preparation materials. The aim of the activity is to increase

30
 Activities and procedures for teacher preparation

TABLE I. SAMPLE ACTIVITY SHEET

What is a communicative activity? Below are six criteria that you can use to
decide how communicative different classroom activities are. Use these criteria
to evaluate the selection of classroom activities attached.
Criteria for evaluating how communicative classroom activities are:
1. Communicative purpose: The activity must involve the students in perform-
ing a real communicative purpose rather than just practicing language for its
own sake. In order for this to occur there must be some kind of “gap” (infor-
mation or opinion) that the students seek to bridge when they are
communicating.
2. Communicative desire: The activity must create a desire to communicate in
the students. That is, even though speaking is forced on the students, they must
feel a real need to communicate.
3. Content, not form: When the students are doing the activity, they must be
concentrating on what they are saying, not how they say it. They must have
some “‘message”’ that they want to communicate.
4. Variety of language: The activity must involve the students in using a variety
of language, not just one specific language form. The students should feel free
to improvise, using whatever resources they choose.
5. No teacher intervention: The activity must be designed to be done by the
students working by themselves rather than with the teacher. The activity should
not involve the teacher correcting or evaluating how the students do the activity,
although it could involve some evaluation of the final “‘product”’ of the activity
when the activity is over. This assessment should be based on whether the
students have achieved their communicative purpose, not whether the language
they used was correct.
6. No materials control: The activity should not be designed to control what
language the students should use. The choice about what language to use should
rest with the students.

Draw a table like the one below. Put a checkmark if you think the activities
meet the criteria. Put an X if you think they do not. In some cases you may not
be sure, so put a question mark.
Activities

Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6

Communicative purpose
Communicative desire
Content, not form
Variety of language
No teacher intervention
ae
ONS
Se No materials control

od
Rod Ellis

%
TABLE 1. (cont.)
When you have finished filling in the table, rank the six teaching activities
; s . . . Ca

according to how communicative you think each activity is overall.

1. (most communicative)

AARWN
. (least communicative)
Source: Harmer (1983).

the student teacher’s understanding of what communicative activities

consist of, and in particular to make them aware that a simple dichotomy
between “communicative” and ‘“noncommunicative” is not possible.
The activity consists of the following:
Data: (1) A set of criteria for evaluating communicative language teach-
ing materials; and (2) a selection of language teaching activities.
Tasks: (1) Evaluating (i.e., using the criteria to evaluate the language
teaching activities); and (2) ranking (i.e., ranking the activities ac-
cording to how communicative the student teachers consider them).

Teacher preparation procedures

What procedures for exploiting the evaluating and ranking activities

(Tables 1 and 2) are available to the teacher educator? Here is a list of
some of the possibilities:
1. Lectures. Lectures can be used to provide straight “input.” Alter-
natively, they can be used as a way of supplying raw material for the
student teacher to operate on.
2. Group/pair discussion. The student teachers work in groups or pairs
using activity sheets.
3. Workshops. The student teachers work individually or in groups to
prepare somethitig, such as classroom materials, teaching aids, or
lesson plans.
4. Individual work/lassignments.
5. Demonstrations. The teacher educator demonstrates a_particu-
lar technique, using either actual students or the student teachers
themselves.

32
 Activities and procedures for teacher preparation

TABLE 2. SELECTED LANGUAGE TEACHING ACTIVITIES

3 Group work
Work in groups of three. Study the example and then continue.
Student Ato — Student B to — Student C (Replies)
Ask Kay to give you her Give me your pen, YES (Here you are.)
pen. please.
Ask Mrs. Wright to give Could we have a YES (Certainly.)
us a sandwich. sandwich, Mrs.
Wright?
1. Ask Jerry if he’s got a NO
letter for me.
2. We must do some NO
shopping tomorrow.
Ask your boss to give
you a day off.
. Ask Adrian to give YES
you his dictionary.
. If you want more YES
coffee, ask Mrs.
Wright.
Communication task
ractice
aS) with your partner:
: Where are you from?
I’m from (country).
: Which part of (country) are you from?’
(Town).
What’s your address?
>WD
>: (Address).
3. Pair work
Work with your partner and ask each other questions about accommodations
in your country. Here are some of the questions:
. What is the cheapest type of accommodation?
Are meals served in all types of accommodation?
Does the price of a room always include breakfast?
What facilities are provided?
op
eae
. Is advance booking advisable?

ei}
Rod Ellis

TABLE 2. (cont.)
a

4. Practice accepting and refusing things

Copy the table below into your exercise book. Put a checkmark next to each
item if you like it. Put an X if you do not like it.

Item Like/dislike
apples
cabbage
beer
coffee
. pork
fish
. milk
CON
WN
AAR
. cakes

Work with a partner. Offer your partner each item in the table. Your partner
should accept or refuse it and say why. Your partner should then offer you each
item.
5. Communication task
Draw your family tree. Use it to talk to your partner about your family. Then
complete your partner’s family tree by asking questions. When you have finished,
compare your versions.
Source: Doff, Jones, and Mitchell (1984).

6. Elicitation. The educator works with the student teachers and tries
to draw out opinions on specific points using a question-and-answer
technique.
7. Plenary discussion. There is general discussion of language teaching
issues with all the trainees together.
8. Panel discussion. The teacher educator can use panel discussion in
several different ways. One way is to invite several student teachers
to form a panel. The other students then prepare some questions on
chosen issues to ask the panel. The course leader acts as the chair-
person of the panel.
A single session may involve just one of these procedures or, as will
often be the case, it may involve a combination of several. For sessions
based on activities, the teacher educator will need to draw up a plan
(on paper or in the head) incorporating appropriate procedures. The
plan in Table 3 has been designed for the sample activity in the previous
section. It is intended to show how selections from the list of procedures
can be used to exploit a particular teacher preparation activity.

34
 Activities and procedures for teacher preparation

TABLE 3. SAMPLE PLAN

1. In plenary
a. Explain aim of activity.
b. Invite definitions of Harmer’s six criteria (with criteria listed on an
overhead projector).
c. Give out activity sheet (Table 1) and ask student teachers to read
through definitions of the six criteria.
d. Deal with any problems regarding definitions as necessary.
e. Check that they understand instructions for first activity and table.
f. Individual students complete table for language teaching activity (in
Table 1).
g. Call on individual students to give their responses in (f), together with
their reasoning, and deal with disagreements.
. In groups
a. Divide student teachers into two groups. Instruct Group A to evaluate
the language teaching activities (Table 2) starting from activity 2.
Group B likewise, starting from Activity 4.
b. Allow groups up to five minutes to begin discussion, and then move
from one group to the other.
c. Ask both groups to prepare an overhead projector transparency of the
results of their discussion.
. In plenary
a. Invite secretaries of Groups A and B to display and explain results on
the overhead projector.
b. General discussion of results.
. Pair work
Student teachers work in pairs to prepare an agreed ranking of language
teaching activities.
. In plenary
a. Pairs pass forward their rankings to teacher educator, who enters them
on transparency. (While this is being done, pairs evaluate language
teaching Activity 5.)
b. Discussion of rankings from 1 to S.
. Individual assignment
Students write an evaluation of Activity 5 in terms of the six criteria and
its place in the rank order.
Note: This plan is based on the sample teacher preparation activity.

Summary and conclusion

Since the mid-seventies there have been considerable changes in second

and foreign language teaching, accompanied by intensive debate about
syllabus design, materials, and classroom practice. In contrast, as Rich-
33
Rod Ellis

ards points out in Chapter 1 of this book, there has been little discussion
of teacher preparation practices (see, though, Holden 1979; British
Council 1981; and Jordan 1983). Given the importance of teacher prep-
aration, this is a serious deficiency. This chapter has developed a schema
— obviously not the only one possible — for thinking about the content
of teacher preparation. To this end, I have suggested that it is useful to
distinguish between experiential and awareness-raising practices. In ad-
dition, I have outlined a framework for describing different types of
teacher preparation activities by listing the various ways in which data
can be provided, and also the kinds of tasks that can be based on the
data. Finally, I have described the procedures the teacher educator can
use. Together these constitute an embryonic taxonomy of teacher prep-
aration materials and practices. Such a taxonomy can serve two principal
functions. First, it can act as a checklist that teacher educators can refer
to when planning a program. Second, it can be used to introduce would-
be teacher educators to the range of options that are open to them. It
should be emphasized, however, that the framework is descriptive. If
we are to develop our understanding of teacher preparation practices
further, it will also be necessary to decide upon evaluative criteria for
making principled selections from the large range of options, both in
devising teacher preparation activities and in drawing up teacher prep-
aration plans.

36
Questions and tasks

Chapter 1 (Richards)

4. Richards draws a distinction between micro and macro approaches

to teacher education. Analyze a teacher education program with which
you are familiar. What is the balance between micro and macro
approaches?

2. Key terms in Richards are effective teaching and classroom manage-

ment. What is your understanding of these terms?

3. Summarize Richards by completing the following table:

Effective teaching Noneffective teaching

Low-inference
behaviors

High-inference
behaviors
Sa

4. Having read Richards, what are some of the things you might observe
or encourage teachers-in-preparation to observe in the classroom?

5. Research cited by Richards indicates that teachers generally employ

a limited repetoire of tasks which essentially define their methodology.
Observe a teacher over a number of lessons. To what extent do your
observations bear out this claim? Analyze the tasks according to:
a) response mode demands
b) interactional mode demands
c) task complexity demands
d) what/how/why were decisions made about
— the order of tasks
— pacing
— products
— learning strategies
participation
uh
Part I

— materials
— grouping of learners

6. What is the distinction between teacher preparation as training and

teacher preparation as education? List those features/characteristics you
might find in a program oriented toward training and those you might
find in a program oriented toward education.

Chapter 2 (Gebhard, Gaitan, and Oprandy)

7. What are the implications for teacher preparation of the Gebhard

et al. claim that “‘there is little proof that any one way of teaching is
better in all settings than another”?

8. How might teachers be encouraged to “reconstruct and revise” their

teaching in ways similar to June?

9. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using observation

schemes to guide classroom observation?

10. Make a list of the small-scale investigative projects student teachers

might carry out to deepen their understanding of their own teaching
processes and behaviors.

11. Gebhard et al. state that “when teacher educators describe teaching,
rather than make judgments about teaching or the student teachers, there
is greater willingness on the part of some student teachers to share
their ideas.” Do you think that it is the responsibility of educators to
judge?

Chapter 3 (Ellis)

12. Consider Ellis’s distinction between experiential and awareness-

raising activities. Analyze a teacher preparation program you are familiar
with. What is the mix between experiential and awareness-raising
activities? Do you think the distinction as drawn by Ellis is a useful one?

13. Analyze a teacher preparation program you are familiar with by

completing the following table.

38
 Questions and tasks

Data % of program How used

Video transcripts
Audio transcripts
Classroom teaching
Peer teaching
Microteaching
Readings
Textbook
Lesson plans
Case studies
Student samples
Teacher training
procedures
Lectures
Group discussions
Workshops
Assignments
Demonstrations
Elicitation
Plenary discussion
Panel discussion

39
ee Rete ane ieey Stee ere
ba © ak e La tiee

—_ dove spragiiin.
a PEL rs itr aT ey
hal ad ema mt ah (Pen gel Cmte i

lao AP ainamt slp «amen dem! rteag Oe agi wh eect eee ee

pie Pas ;
PeeS Hi AG, le a ‘ Be a iPevre.
i sre
wereoS &
Aa tos, SNe FO. Oa ALS ee ee ae a reat al

fnew Ya
ore ites
(des
<i * i

t-te eies) linde eee ite

: Noten cotati:at and

Mste
Part II Investigating teachers
and learners in
the classroom
The chapters in this section focus on integrating theory and practice in
teacher education through investigating the nature of second language
classroom interactions. While the chapters differ in focus and perspec-
tive, they all provide teachers with procedures and schemes for analyzing
and critiquing interactional processes. By outlining ways of investigating
classroom action and interaction, and by providing schemes for making
sense of classroom processes, they follow logically from the position
papers in Part I, which stressed the primacy of the classroom in providing
data for teacher education.
In Chapter 4 Day presents and evaluates a number of techniques and
procedures for introducing teachers-in-preparation to guided, system-
atic, and focused classroom observation. Such a program of observation
can help student teachers integrate theory and practice as they develop
their understanding of language classroom processes.
Nunan also encourages teachers to link theory and practice through
an action research cycle of observation, identification of problem or
issue, intervention, and evaluation. He argues that classroom practi-
tioners should be involved in curriculum development and innovation,
and that this can be achieved through encouraging teachers to adopt an
action research orientation to their own classrooms. However, a nec-
essary prerequisite to such research is the development of appropriate
skills in classroom observation and analysis. To this end, a four-stage
workshop procedure for developing observational and analytical skills
is outlined and illustrated with data from a workshop conducted with
a group of teachers of English as a second language to adults.
In Chapter 6 Wright also highlights the need for teacher development
programs to achieve a balance between theory and practice, suggesting,
in fact, that this is a primary goal of all teacher development programs.
Unfortunately, this goal is not always achieved, and Wright suggests
that an investigation of teacher and learner roles can help to draw both
theory and practice together as well as provide a point of reference for
participants in teacher development programs. This is because teacher
—learner relationships lie at the heart of classroom interaction. Wright
describes a workshop procedure that encourages participants to explore
teacher and learner roles.
The procedures outlined by Nunan and Wright evolved from inservice
41
Part II

programs, whereas Day develops his proposals within the context of

initial teacher education. Despite the particular context, however, all of
these procedures can be adapted to a wide variety of pre- and inservice
teacher education programs. Each author also shows that practical class-
room decision making is always underpinned by theories of language
and learning.

42
4 Teacher observation in second
language teacher education
Richard R. Day

This chapter is concerned with observing second language classrooms

within the context of teacher education. The purpose is to describe one
component of a teacher education program: observation by the student
teacher of experienced teachers. In addition to presenting a number of
techniques and instruments and discussing their advantages and disad-
vantages, I examine the role that observation plays in a teacher education
program. The chapter begins with a rationale for including observation
of experienced teachers in teacher education. This is followed by an
examination of observational techniques and instruments that are ap-
propriate in observing second language classrooms.

Why student teacher observation

In considering approaches to teacher education, it is helpful to make a

distinction between what Leinhardt and Smith (1984, as cited in Good
and Brophy 1987) call subject-matter knowledge and action-system
knowledge. Subject-matter knowledge refers to the specific information
needed by teachers to teach content. Action-system knowledge refers to
information dealing with teaching and learning in general, regardless of
the subject matter. Included in action-system knowledge are such issues
as classroom management and teacher expectations.
One way in which student teachers can begin to acquire action-system
of
knowledge is through guided, systematic, and focused observation
student
experienced second language teachers. Such a process will aid the
g what goes on in the second languag e class-
teacher in conceptualizin
student
room. Having a formal program of observation can assist the
teacher in:
the teach-
1. developing a terminology for understanding and discussing
ing process
that
2. developing an awareness of the principles and decision making
underlie effective teaching
practices
3. distinguishing between effective and ineffective classroom
can apply to
4. identifying techniques and practices student teachers
their own teaching.
43
Richard R. Day

A successful program in second language teacher education thus helps

student teachers develop an integrated set of theories and belief systems
that can provide them with a framework for effective teaching.

Techniques and instruments for observation

There are two broad approaches to observing second language class-

rooms, qualitative and quantitative. The division of techniques and in-
struments into these two approaches does not imply that either one
is preferable to the other. The purposes of the observation must deter-
mine the technique and instrument to be used. Nor does the separation
imply that one or the other should be used exclusively. Indeed, a combi-
nation of both approaches is important in second language teacher
education.

Qualitative approaches
Techniques in qualitative approaches are generally referred to by several
terms, including educational ethnography (Good and Brophy 1987) and
wide-lens (Acheson and Gall 1987). They are derived from work in the
social sciences, particularly anthropology, in which fieldworkers attempt
to make a complete record of all the events that occurred in a given
situation.
The general goal of a qualitative approach is to provide rich, descrip-
tive data about what happens in the second language classroom. An
ethnography of a second language classroom attempts to capture the
essence or spirit of what was going on during the observer’s presence,
and is especially useful when the observer wants to capture a broad
picture of a lesson rather than focus on a particular aspect of it. In
second language teacher education programs, written ethnographies are
useful in introducing student teachers to the complexity of the second
language classroom. Student teachers are often not aware of what com-
plex environments their future classrooms are until they attempt to
describe what actually happens in one. Written ethnographies are also
beneficial to student teachers in helping them see the multiple roles of
the second language teacher. Another advantage is that they allow the
student teacher to compare and contrast a teacher’s use of both subject-
matter knowledge and action-system knowledge during a lesson.
The main disadvantage of qualitative approaches lies in their very
nature — they are so broad that it takes a highly trained observer to do
a competent and reliable observation. An untrained observer may be
overwhelmed by the complexity of what goes on and not be able to
focus on important events as they unfold in the classroom.

44
 Teacher observation in second language teacher education

Several representative techniques and instruments that are qualitative

in their approach will now be considered.

WRITTEN ETHNOGRAPHY

Written ethnography is the classic technique used in a qualitative ap-

proach. The observer, seated in a strategic position which allows the
widest possible view of the entire classroom, either attempts a written
account of the entire proceedings of the classroom activities for a set
period of time or takes extensive and detailed notes from which an
account of the activities is reconstructed later.
In attempting such a record, the observer should have on hand a good
supply of writing instruments and paper, and a watch for recording the
time as the observation progresses. It is generally regarded as helpful
for the student teacher to record the time of the beginning and ending
of activities and the occurrence of significant events.
The written statements in an ethnography should be as descriptive
and objective as possible, and should not be judgmental or evaluative.
For example, instead of writing “Students are interested in the lesson,”
it is more helpful to write, “The students are focusing on the task at
hand.” An observation such as “‘As the class ends, six students rush up
to the teacher to talk to her, four begin talking to each other in their
first language, and six move slowly to the door, attempting to use En-
glish” might be more beneficial than something such as “The class ends
in confusion with a lot of talking.”
A complete ethnographic record often goes beyond observing the
teacher, the students, and the interaction between them. It also includes
information about the classroom (e.g., size, seating, furnishing, physical
equipment), the quality and quantity of visual aids, room temperature,
and so on.
Appendix 1 is an example of a record of an advanced class of ESL
students in an American university. The observer was enrolled in a
teaching practicum course. Note the detail included in the description.
A written record such as this helps to sensitize student teachers to the
complexity of teaching and to bring to their attention events of which
they might not be aware.
The advantages of a written ethnography are those mentioned pre-
viously for any qualitative approach. In addition, relative to other ob-
servational techniques, it provides more information about the social
context of the classroom, which may be useful in interpreting behavior.
~However, there are disadvantages in asking student teachers to at-
tempt written ethnographies. There is so much activity in the second
language classroom that the student teacher often has a great deal of
difficulty in keeping up with the action. The student teacher may tire
45
Richard R. Day

quickly, and fail to keep an accurate record of events. Further, the

anecdotal record or written ethnography may be affected by the biases
of the student teacher. It is a difficult task to record events in the class-
room reliably and accurately, for what is perceived is heavily influenced
by the observer’s own experiences. It is difficult to be objective and
neutral.
Another disadvantage of a written ethnography is that it does not
address specific questions; therefore, the information collected is often
inappropriate for addressing specific issues. Further, since it does not
focus on a particular set of classroom behaviors, it is difficult to compare
the results with other classes.

AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS

Audio and video recordings are a type of ethnographic observation,

which are similar to and different from written ethnographies in fun-
damental, yet obvious, ways. They are alike in that the focus may be a
rather wide lens. All are capable of allowing observation, or attempted
observation, of events taking place in the classroom as a whole.
The most obvious difference is the medium by which the recordings
or observations are made. In addition, unlike a written ethnography,
audio and video recordings permit teachers to see and hear themselves
as their students see and hear them. They are the most neutral techniques
for observation. Finally, along with their complete objectivity, audio and
video recordings have the potential of capturing the essence of the class-
room, and can be listened to or viewed over and over, allowing the
participants to agree on an interpretation of an event or behavior.
One of the drawbacks to the use of both audio and video recordings,
however, is the fact that they are intrusive, with the latter much more
so than the former. One way of lessening the impact of equipment in
the classroom is for the student teacher to set up the equipment before
the students arrive, and allow the students to examine the equipment
before class begins. The teacher who is being recorded might attempt
to take advantage of the equipment as a focus for part of an activity or
lesson.
As the number of students in the classroom to be observed increases,
so does the degree of complexity of the observation. It is relatively easy
to videotape a group of six or seven students and the teacher; the teacher
plus a class of thirty to forty students is another matter. The student
teacher will learn by experience what can be best captured on tape with
the equipment, and will become more adept at the process over time.
Since most observations in teacher education programs are concerned
with the teacher, often the most useful results are obtained when the
camera is focused on the teacher.

46
 Teacher observation in second language teacher education

A LIMITED OR SELECTED ETHNOGRAPHY OR RECORDING

The discussion thus far has treated both the written ethnography and
audio/video recordings as focusing on the class as a whole, without
regard to any particular issues or behaviors. However, it is possible to
modify the procedure to focus on individual behavior or a set of be-
haviors. For example, rather than attempting to focus on everything that
occurs in the classroom, the student teacher might try to record what
happens when the teacher gives instructions. Acheson and Gall (1987)
refer to this technique as selective verbatim, by which they mean an
exact transcription of particular verbal statements.
There are several advantages to this technique. To begin with, the
student teacher’s attention is focused on the particular behavior being
observed. If it is verbal behavior of some sort, then the student teacher,
in examining the record later, is able to concentrate on the verbal ex-
changes — what the teacher said to the student and what the student
said in reply. This allows the student teacher the opportunity to evaluate
the effectiveness of the behaviors. Another advantage is the neutral,
objective nature of the data, even if the observation is written and not
recorded in some fashion. This is possible because the student teacher
is not attempting to record all that is said during the lesson, but only a
selected set of behaviors.
As a written technique, it is easy to use. Observers do not have to be
as highly trained as they need to be to do a full-scale ethnography.
Finally, the data are often relatively simple to interpret, especially in
comparison to the mass of data collected by an unlimited ethnography.
There are two other problems, however, with the use of a limited or
selected ethnography. If the teacher is aware that the student teacher
plans to record use of yes/no questions, for example, the teacher might
modify his or her behavior. It is my experience that in practice teachers
have simply too much to do to focus or concentrate for any degree of
time on their use or nonuse of the target behavior. Finally, the student
teacher could choose rather uninteresting or trivial behaviors on which
to focus. If this occurs, it will be apparent when the student teacher
examines the data that there is very little to be learned about what was
recorded.

Quantitative approaches
Techniques or instruments found under a quantitative approach to sec-
ond language classroom observation generally take the form of a check-
list or a form to be filled in or completed. The behavior or behaviors in
question are indicated in some fashion, and the observer’s role is to
record their occurrence and, as appropriate, the time. There are almost
47
Richard R. Day
as many instruments as there are observers, for they are easily devised
and easily employed in the classroom. Often, an instrument is made up
or an existing one is modified when the student teacher and the teacher
discuss what behaviors the student teacher might observe. These instru-
ments may be divided into frequency counts or classroom observation
scales and are designed to examine teacher behavior, student behavior,
or the interaction between the teacher and students or among students.
In this section, I examine a representative sampling of these instruments
and show how they may be used by student teachers observing the second
language classroom.
Before discussing these techniques and instruments, some of the gen-
eral pros and cons associated with quantitative approaches need to be
considered. Among the main advantages is, as noted previously, that
they are relatively simple to construct or revise and to use. Unlike qual-
itative approaches, the observer who uses these instruments does not
have to be highly trained in their use and interpretation. In addition,
depending on the instrument, they may give the actual number of be-
haviors per unit of time, allowing for comparison among students or
across classes.
The chief drawback-to their use is that the units of observation may
be trivial aspects of the teaching and learning process. Or they may not
be crucially involved with or related to the concerns or purpose of the
observation. Further, the actual behaviors observed may not explain all
of the facts of the focus of the observation or the problem. Finally, aside
from the behaviors being recorded by the observer, the teacher will most
likely not know what else the students did during the observation period.
A major factor associated with quantitative approaches used in ob-
serving the second language classroom involves the concept of inference.
Instruments may differ as to the degree of inference they require the
observer to make, ranging from relatively low-inference items to high-
inference items (see Richards, this volume, Chapter 1). A low-inference
item is one that is readily recognizable and specific (e.g., “‘student raises
hand”’); a high-inference item refers to more covert, less specific behavior
(e.g., “teacher asks a known-answer question,” where the observer may
have to infer if the teacher knows the answer to the question). Depending
on the purpose of the observation, either low- or high-inference instru-
ments are used, although low-inference instruments are generally pre-
ferred in teacher education observations.
The advantages to the use of low-inference instruments are their ease
of use and the confidence that can be placed in the data they generate.
The latter factor concerns reliability, a key issue in observing any be-
havior, especially in research situations.
The disadvantages to the use of low-inference instruments have to do
mainly with their nature. Research has not established a causal rela-

48
 Teacher observation in second language teacher education
tionship between student learning and most codable behaviors of teach-
ers. However, such a lack does not decrease the value of coded
observations as a tool to help observe events in the classroom.

Seating chart observation records

There are a variety of techniques for observing teacher and student
interaction based on the use of seating charts. Acheson and Gall refer
to such observation instruments as Seating Chart Observation REcords
(SCORE) (1987: 97). The concept is relatively simple: Using a seating
chart of the classroom to be observed, the observer records the occur-
rences of the targeted behavior or behaviors.
The preparation of a SCORE instrument begins with making a seating
chart. Since second and foreign language classrooms utilize many dif-
ferent seating arrangements, I recommend that a seating chart be con-
structed in the class to be observed. Boxes are best used to represent
students, for they allow sufficient space to record the data unambigu-
ously. The students’ names may or may not be placed in the box. Other
indications of student identity can also be used, such as F = female, M
= male, or numbers. Figure 1 illustrates one possible way of diagram-
ming a seating chart.
The flow of verbal interaction may be indicated by arrows, with the
head of the arrow indicating the direction of the flow or the person to
whom the utterance was directed. I have found that the arrows generally
can be confined to the box, unless it is desirable to show student—student
interaction across boxes. The arrow can be crossed to indicate the num-
ber of times the interaction occurred; an arrow crossed four times may
be used to show a verbal behavior that occurred five times. An indication
of the type of verbal behavior helps in the coding procedure. For ex-
ample, an arrow with the letter G next to it and placed in a student box
could indicate that the student responded to a general solicit by the
teacher. The letter S might indicate a spontaneous utterance, and so on.
SCORE instruments have a number of advantages associated with
them, including ease of use and interpretation. They can be created for
a particular purpose with no difficulty. Acheson and Gall report that a
great deal of information about classroom interaction can be consoli-
dated on one page with a SCORE instrument (1987: 97). Another benefit
is that SCORE instruments allow examination of individual students
without losing sight of the behavior of other students in the classroom.
Finally, unlike other low-inference instruments, SCORE instruments al-
low the observer and the teacher to examine important features of class-
room behavior (e.g., at- or off-task behavior). The disadvantages for the -
use of SCORE instruments are the same as for other low-inference
instruments.
49
Richard R. Day
| = Teacher question — general
} = Teacher question — individual
student

LE
+ = Student response to
individual question
Ws = Student response to
general question
= No response to individual
question

i abieae @ ;

mf rl F

3
©

Figure 1 SCORE showing verbal interaction. V = vacant seat; M =

male; F = female; L = latecomer.
 Teacher observation in second language teacher education
In working with student teachers, I have found SCORE instruments
particularly helpful in three areas: teacher and student talk; at-task; and
movement patterns.

Teacher and student talk

Teacher and student talk, referred to by Acheson and Gall (1987: 105)
as verbal flow, is a technique used to record who is talking to whom
and how frequently. Student teachers use it to record teachers’ ques-
tioning behavior and how they praise students; in addition, a verbal
flow can also be used to code student questions and responses.
Figure 1 is an example of a SCORE instrument used to code the verbal
flow of an ESL classroom. It was prepared in the classroom by the student
teacher and captures the nature of the verbal flow in the classroom.
Through it, we learn that the teacher generally called on students in-
dividually — 45 times; she used a questioning technique of general so-
liciting (calling on the class in general) only 10 times. Two male students
sitting in the back of the room failed to respond when called on. We
can also notice the existence of what Adams and Biddle (1970) label an
“action zone.” The students seated in front of the teacher in the first
three rows generally received more opportunities to talk and took more
turns at talking than did other students in the class.

At-task
Coding at-task behavior of students is helpful in that it gives the teacher
knowledge about what students are doing in the classroom. For example,
in supervising a student teacher, I used a self-designed SCORE instru-
ment for at- and off-task behavior in an advanced ESL listening com-
prehension class, and recorded such behavior in two-minute intervals.
Every two minutes, I quickly observed the entire class individually, and
noted what each student was doing, the activity, and other information
that had been agreed upon with the student teacher in advance. I learned
that one student was sleeping during several of our coding periods.
During a subsequent discussion about the observation, the student
teacher was amazed to learn this. He was not aware that the student
had been off-task, much less asleep, during the lesson. It turned out that
this particular student was having difficulty in the class and had exhibited
other types of problem behavior. The student teacher used the infor-
mation obtained from the at- and off-task observation to have a con-
ference with the student in an attempt to determine what the student’s
problems were.
One of the difficulties in attempting to code at-task behavior is often
the high-inferential nature of the categories used. It is a rather low-
oi
Richard R. Day
inferential task to code students who are out of their seats or the room,
playing or sleeping. But it is a high-inferential task to decide if students
talking during a group-work activity are at- or off-task, unless the ob-
server is close enough to hear the speech. It is also a high-inferential
task to determine if a student who is writing something in a notebook
during a conversation class is off-task, as the student could possibly be
writing down a vocabulary item that came up during the lesson.

Movement patterns
The purpose of the SCORE instrument is to chart the movements of the
teacher or students, or both, during a lesson. It is felt that the nature of
the teacher’s movement may be related in some fashion to classroom
management (e.g., discipline or holding student attention). The coding
of a teacher’s moves during a lesson might also indicate biases toward
certain students, much in the same way a verbal flow can. The coding
of student moves has the potential of revealing whether they are at-task.
In a second language classroom, movement patterns can be coded to
trace what a teacher does during activities that are not teacher-fronted.
Such a coding can be a helpful demonstration to the student teacher of
the impact that teacher movement may have on the teaching and learning
processes. For example, a student teacher who codes a teacher’s move-
ments in group-work activities could determine if a group is being
slighted by the teacher and, consequently, may not be at-task as fre-
quently as groups that receive the bulk of the teacher’s attention.

Other quantitative instruments

In this section, information is presented on the observation of three

phenomena in the second language classroom: teacher expectations,
classroom management, and motivation. The three instruments used to
observe them are quantitative in nature but are not SCORE instruments.

Teacher expectations
Since the publication of Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) research on
teacher expectations as self-fulfilling prophecies, there has been a great
deal of interest and fesearch on the topic of teacher expectations in
content areas. Good and Brophy, in a review of the research, observe
that teacher.expectations can be expected to affect student achievement,
attitudes, beliefs, attributions, expectations, motivational patterns, and
classroom conduct (1987: 144). While there has been no research to my
knowledge on this topic in second language classrooms, there is no

52
 Teacher observation in second language teacher education

reason to think that second language teachers would be different from

others. Therefore, teacher expectations is a fruitful topic for student
teachers to explore.
Good and Brophy offer a number forms by which teacher expectations
may be observed (1987: 162—72). I have used a number of these suc-
cessfully in my work with student teachers.-One of these is displayed in
Appendix 2; it addresses the_giving of praise by the teacher, a critical
aspect of teacher expectations When used by my student teachers in
observing others, they learned that some teachers give no praise at all,
while
teachers
other praise a great deal. Such findings generate insightful
discussions about the role of praise in classroom teaching.
In using forms such as Appendix 2, it is important to devise a system
for identifying individual students. One easy way is through the use of
a seating chart, in which each student is assigned a number. Regardless
of the means of student identification, the coding is relatively simple.
For example, in the form in Appendix 2, every time the student teacher
observes the teacher praising an individual student, he or she codes the
behavior category and indicates to which student it was addressed. This
type of form can be readily modified to suit particular needs or purposes.

Classroom management
Classroom management is a topic about which student teachers often
know little and have a great deal of anxiety. I find that having them
observe experienced teachers and code aspects of classroom management
is very helpful. Through such observation and subsequent discussion,
student teachers realize that classroom management does not just happen
or evolve, and that teacher behavior can have a direct influence on
student behavior.
Good and Brophy (1987: 256—9) suggest four forms observing
for
classroom management. In Appendix 3, one form is presented that is
used todetermine how a teacher handles transitions and group man-
agement. Student teachers have found this useful in observing ESL classes
that contain a lot of group- and pair-work activities. Such observations
often reveal the difficulty even experienced teachers have in providing
an orderly transition from group work to a teacher-fronted activity.

Motivation
Among the most widely discussed topics in second language learning is
the role of motivation in the successful acquisition of the target language.
Appendix 4 presents a form from Good and Brophy (1987) that may
be beneficial in observing teacher behaviors believed to be directly related
55
Richard R. Day

to student motivation. It involves low-inference as well as more mod-

erate-inference categories, and may be modified as needed.
It should again be stressed that research has not established a causal
relationship with any of these behaviors and second language acquisi-
tion. They are behaviors, however, that influence the atmosphere of the
classroom and, as a result, the setting in which students learn the target
language. Making student teachers aware of them by observing expe-
rienced teachers helps them understand how teachers may indirectly
affect the acquisition process.

Conclusion

While there are a number of approaches to helping student teachers

understand and appreciate what goes on in the second language class-
room in general and the teacher’s role in particular, observation of
second language classrooms is an exceptionally effective way. However,
for observation to have a critical impact on student teachers’ professional
development, it must be guided and systematic. The careful use of the
approaches and techniques presented in this chapter may be of use in
achieving this goal.

Appendix 1 Ethnography of an ESL classroom

Ethnographic observation
Advanced Academic Listening and Speaking Class: March 1, 1988
Background: The class is a bi-weekly, university level, advanced, academic
language skills class for non-native speakers of English. There are fifteen
students from various Asian cultures. In the last class period, the students
handed in homework in which they listed topics they would like to work on
for group in-class presentations (one of the course objectives). The lesson
plan is to have the students decide on their presentation groups and their
topics. Today’s class is being video-taped by the observer.

BEGIN
12:00 The teacher comes in the room and sets up the desk area. He
seems a bit nervous, perhaps due to being video-taped. The
students are sitting down and talking among themselves. The
12:03 teacher silently draws in a seating chart of the class. He takes roll,
calling students one by one as he fills in the seating chart.
Meanwhile, two students are getting their discussion question
sheets ready to give to the other students (this is for the next class,

(Printed by permission of Lester Loschky.)

54
 Teacher observation in second language teacher education
when they will lead a discussion). The teacher says he wants to do
some house-keeping. He writes on the blackboard and says, ““No
more Science Editor tape notes.” Oohs and aahs come from the
students. The teacher smiles. He says, “I wrote ‘Yeah’ in my lesson
plan by this, so you guys did just perfectly,” as he points to the
piece of paper. He says they will be busy enough with their other
homework, such as the workbook, the discussion questions, and
12:06 their in-class presentations. The students listen silently. The teacher
asks the students to type their discussion questions and the
answers they make for them. He says, “I don’t hear any ‘Yeahs’
for that one.” ““Yeah!”’ says one student. “Crazy,” says the teacher
in mock humor. The class laughs. The teacher asks the two
students to pass out their discussion questions to the others. The
students begin to pass them out. Both students have to give
everyone two different questions. One student has both questions
on a single sheet of paper, but the other has his questions on two
separate slips of paper. Soon there is confusion because of all the
different slips of paper being passed around the class. The teacher
12:10 realizes this too late. He explains that the students shouldn’t
separate the two questions on different slips of paper. ““One person
did it the way I wanted. The other person didn’t.” ““Who has both
of Yuu Gyeong’s questions?” asks the teacher. Only a few
students’ hands go up. “Who doesn’t have ‘both of Yuu Gyeong’s
questions?” Many hands go up. The teacher reaches over to a pile
of extra questions on his desk. ““Oh, you handed these to me,” he
says. The class breaks out in laughter. The teacher hands out the
questions to the students who don’t have them. The teacher writes
12:13 on the board and says, “I’m sure you will be interested in this
topic; it’s ‘Women’s Liberation: The Struggle for Equality.’ Since
we have a lot of young women in this class, I’m sure you can get a
good debate going.” The students write down the assignment in
their notebooks. The teacher then writes their next reading
assignment on the board and briefly explains that it covers
outlining a speech. Students write down the assignment in their
notebooks silently. The teacher asks if the students have any
12:16 questions. After waiting for a few seconds, there is no response, so
he goes on to the next topic. The teacher explains to the students
that they are to pair up for their group presentations. He explains
that he has paired the students by their responses on their
homework about the topics in which they were interested. He asks
the students to see if they like the matches he has made, and if not,
they can see about pairing with other students. He hands back the
students’ homework sheets to each student. ‘Keiichi, it looks like
12:18 you might be interested in working with Yuu Gyeong.” The
students move into pairs to begin working. As the students get
settled into the task, laughs and animated conversation begin to
erupt from the groups. The teacher begins to circulate among the
students. He heads for the back of the room where four students
55
Richard R. Day
who hadn’t come to the last class or hadn’t done their homework
are sitting together. He asks the students to discuss which topics
they would like to work on and to try to form two groups. Two
students immediately form a pair, leaving the other two to work
12:24 together. The teacher then goes to the front of the class where two
students appear to be having difficulty. The students are smiling
uneasily and questioning the teacher. The two students don’t seem
to want to work together. The teacher says he thought their
pairing would be difficult but tries to help them find a common
interest. “Just see if you can agree on one thing,” he says. Another
student nearby in the left center of the room asks the teacher a
question about the grouping procedure. He also seems to be
having difficulty with his partner. ““You’re gonna hafta ‘bend’ a
12:23 little bit,” says the teacher. The student laughs. The teacher
circulates to the front right part of class to check on another pair
of students. One student, an art major, explains that they are
interested in doing a presentation on Picasso. ““You’re both
interested in that?” asks the teacher. The other student replies
affirmatively. The teacher goes on to check with the pair sitting
behind them. The pair checks to make sure they understand the
assignment correctly. The teacher confirms that they understood it.
The teacher then circulates to the back of the room
12:26 again to check on the progress of the last four students. The
teacher discusses the situation with them. “You’re gonna have to
compromise,” he says. Various students appear to be more
interested in working together than others. The pair in the left
center of the room seems quite silent. Most of the others are
actively discussing their topics. The level of busy noise in the room
12:29 is quite high. The teacher goes back to the pair in the front who
were having trouble earlier. They ask him about the types of topics
they should choose. The teacher tells them, “You don’t want them
to fall asleep. It’s gotta be interesting.”’ One student in the pair
asks if they need to use statistics in the presentation. The teacher
replies that if statistics work with the particular presentation, they
should use them. The teacher then goes to the blackboard and
12:31 starts writing. He is writing a set of heuristic questions for the
students to use in developing their presentation topics. Some
students, especially in the middle of the front of the class, are
talking and occasionally laughing and seem actively engaged in
the task. The pair in the front, to the left, who were earlier
having trouble, are discussing their topic. One or two students
start copying the heuristic questions from the blackboard. Others
12:35 discuss their topics. The teacher finishes writing on the board.
“Excuse me. Can IJ have your attention. I don’t want to disturb
your working hard, but here are some questions, some of which
you may have already been considering, that I would like you to
answer. If you have already found the answers, then you don’t
have to worry about them, but keep them in mind. So please write

56
 Teacher observation in second language teacher education
them down.” The students take notes of the questions. One has
already finished. The teacher asks, “Did you already take notes?
OK.” The teacher then asks, “Do you have any questions about
these questions?” The students do not respond. The teacher calls
on individual students one by one. None of the students indicate
that they have any questions. The teacher sayshe has one more
12:40 question, but that they don’t have to write it down. It is regarding
what each student can contribute to their pairs in terms of library
research, writing of the presentation and giving the presentation.
He says that both students must take the same grade, so they don’t
want to have one weak member. Most students are silent, though
one laughs and makes a comment in a low voice. The teacher
smiles and asks a particular student “Do you want to do all of the
work?” “‘No,” replies the student, giggling. The teacher tells the
12:42 students that they will have ten more minutes to go through the
heuristic questions, and that those who finish early can go on to
brainstorming their topics in more detail. He explains that what he
means by “brainstorming” is “mind mapping,” which the class has
briefly covered before. One student asks if they have to write down
every answer. The teacher says that they don’t need to write down
their answers as long as they go through each question. The
12:44 students begin working again busily.

57
Richard R. Day

Appendix 2 Individual praise

‘

FORM 4.3. Individual Praise

USE: Whenever the teacher praises an individual student

PURPOSE: To see what behaviors the teacher reinforces through praise, and
to see how the teacher's praise is distributed among the students
Whenever the teacher praises an individual student, code the student’s
number and each category of teacher behavior that applies
(consecutively).

BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES STUDENT NUMBER CODES

1. Perseverance or effort, worked lon 14 Linke
or hard 23 2. 3.4
2. Progress (relative to the past) toward 6 33x
achievement /3 Aven
3. Success (right answer, high score), 8 5
achievement
4. Good thinking, good suggestion, oss|e tesa) 6.
good guess or nice try ete Beet dese 3
5. Imagination, creativity, originality a Bk
6. Neatness, careful work Re
7. Good or compliant behavior, follows 1 apeaai
rules, pays attention 11.
8. Thoughtfulness, courtesy, offering to 7a oo
share; prosocial behavior 13 fe
9. Other (specify) y wamey
(Sacre
NOTES: 16
Qk anewerr ocawrnredl Vee a

20-3.
= Was frorTicularty comesrmicl about 21: oes
S a Gitakiaen 4 pals ee is 92 ites:
; 2340 as
24.
ea SA nedoklen Joga

(From T. L. Good and J. E. Brophy, Looking in Classrooms, 4th ed., p. 165. Copyright
© 1987 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

58
Appendix 3 Transitions and group management

FORM 6.1. Transitions and Group Management

USE: During organizational and transition periods before, between, and

after lessons and organized activities
PURPOSE: To see if teacher manages these periods efficiently and avoids
needless delays and regimentation
How does the teacher handle early morning routines, transitions be-
tween activities, and clean-up and preparation time?

Record any information relevant to the following questions:

. Does the teacher do things that students could do for themselves?

. Are there delays caused because everyone must line up or wait his turn?
Can these be reduced with a more efficient procedure?

. Does the teacher give clear instructions about what to do next before
breaking a group and entering a transition? Shaclente anem 't char

Bhs ia Lenling to Loach mak groupe.

. Does the teacher circulate during transitions, to handle individual needs?
Does he take care of these before attempting to begin a new activity?
ici eee Seaen: oreclione before Tranadion
, rather

. Does the teacher signal the end of a transition and the beginning of a
structured activity properly, and quickly gain everyone's attention?

atert suskly, . Sowslimer haw 2 or 3 feb start.

Check if applicable:

il: Transitions come too abruptly for students because teacher

fails to give advance warning or finish up reminders when
needed
. The teacher insists on unnecessary rituals or formalisms that
cause delays or disruptions (describe)
_ Teacher is often interrupted by individuals with the same prob-
lem or request; this could be handled by establishing a general
rule or procedure (describe) Sa 3 above.
. Delays occur because frequently used materials are stored in
hard to reach places Pane harper Too leae tr

. Poor traffic patterns result in pushing, bumping, or needless

noise
. Poor seating patterns screen some students from teacher's view
Or cause students needless distraction
. Delays occur while teacher prepares equipment or illustrations
that should have been prepared earlier

(From T. L. Good and J. E. Brophy, Looking in Classrooms, 4th ed., p. 256. Copyright
© 1987 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
SY,
Richard R. Day

Appendix 4 Motivational analysis of tasks

and activities .

FORM 8.4. Motivational Analysis of Tasks and Activities

USE: Whenever particular classroom tasks or activities are observed

PURPOSE: To identify the motivational elements built into the task or
activity
Check each of the motivational elements that was included in the
observed task or activity.

A. EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION STRATEGIES

1. Offers rewards as incentives for good performance
2. Calls attention to the instrumental value of the knowledge or
skills developed in the activity (applications to present or
future life outside of school)
3. Structures individual or group competition for prizes or
recognition
B. INTRINSIC MOTIVATIONAL FEATURES OF THE TASK OR ACTIVITY
1. Opportunities for active response (beyond just watching and
listening)
2. Opportunities to answer divergent questions or work on
higher level objectives
3. Immediate feedback to students’ responses (built into the
task itself, rather than provided by the teacher as in C.8
below)
. Gamelike features (the task is a game or contains gamelike
features that make it more like a recreational activity than a
typical academic activity)
. Task completion involves creating a finished product for
display or use
. The task involves fantasy or simulation elements that engage
students’ emotions or allow them to experience events
vicariously
. The task provides opportunities for students to interact with
their peers

60
 Teacher observation in second language teacher education
FORM 8.4. (Continued)

C. TEACHER'S ATTEMPTS TO STIMULATE STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION TO

LEARN
es . Projects intensity (communicating that the material is
important and deserves close attention)
Induces task interest or appreciation
Induces curiosity or suspense
Makes abstract content more personal, concrete, or familiar
Induces dissonance or cognitive conflict
Induces students to generate their own motivation to learn
States learning objectives or provides advance organizers
9)
SS
SONProvides opportunities for students to respond and get
feedback (asks questions during group lessons, circulates to
monitor performance during seatwork)
. Models task-related thinking and problem solving (“thinks out
loud” when working through examples)
. Includes instruction or modeling designed to increase
students’ metacognitive awareness of their learning efforts in
response to the task (includes information about mental
preparation for learning, about the organization or structure
built into the content, about how students can impose their
own organizational structures on the content to help them
remember it, or about how to monitor one’s own
comprehension and respond to confusion or mistakes)

(From T. L. Good andJ. E. Brophy, Looking in Classrooms, 4th ed., pp. 350-1. Copyright
© 1987 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

61
5 Action research in the
language classroom
David Nunan

This chapter takes as its point of departure the notion that classroom
teachers should be involved in curriculum research and development as
these relate to their own classrooms and that a primary goal for inservice
teacher education is to give teachers ways of exploring their own class-
rooms. However, such involvement presupposes certain skills and
knowledge in classroom observation and research. In particular, teachers
need to be able to conceptualise their practice in theoretical terms, they
need to be aware of issues amenable to action research, and they need
to have skills in data collection and analysis. These skills can be devel-
oped through action research projects wherein professional development
programs can feed into a constant cycle of intervention itoring, and
modification to classroom practice.
In this chapter I shall describe a program designed to develop skills
in classroom observation and action research. The program is illus-
trated with data from workshops conducted with senior teachers of
English to speakers of other languages from within the Australian
Adult Immigrant Education Program (AMEP). Given the heteroge-
neous nature of the AMEP, a centralised, imposed curriculum is un-
suitable. A consequence of this is that classroom practitioners need to
play a central role in curriculum development, inciuding monitoring
and evaluation. To this end, it is crucial that teachers develop a range
of skills in planning, monitoring, and evaluating their own profes-
sional activities.

Background

It will be helpful first to draw a distinction between assessment, eval-

uation, and action research. Assessment refers to the set of processes
through which we make judgments about a learner’s level of skills and
knowledge. Evaluation refers to the wider process of collecting and
interpreting data in order to make judgments about a particular program
or programs. The data we draw on during the evaluation process will
usually include learner assessment data, but it will include other infor-
mation as well. Obtaining information about what students have or have
not learned, however, is only a first step. A necessary second step is to

62
 Action research in the language classroom
determine why particular results were or were not obtained. A third step
is to decide what, if anything, we intend to do about these results.
It is important that teachers be involved in program planning and
evaluation as well as the more customary role of program implemen-
tation. This is particularly true of educational systems such as the
AMEP, in which curriculum development happens at the local level.
But it is also important in centralised systems where, in Schwab’s
(1983) terms, ‘the curriculum is created in Moscow and telegraphed
to the provinces’. In centralised and decentralised systems alike, the
teacher provides the interface between the syllabus and the student.
The teacher is therefore admirably placed inside the ‘black box’, as
Long (1980) calls it, and is potentially well placed to provide insights
into classroom learning and teaching. One of the problems with
teachers as researchers, however, is that they often lack appropriate
training in the collection and interpretation of classroom data (see,
for example, Pica and Doughty 1985).
One way of encouraging teachers to develop research skills is to get
them to adopt an action research orientation to their classroom. A set
of procedures for conducting such research is set out in Kemmis and
McTaggart (1982). Their concept of action research is captured in the
following statement:
The linking of the terms ‘action’ and ‘research’ highlights the essential feature
of the method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of improvement and as
a means of increasing knowledge about the curriculum, teaching and
learning. The result is improvement in what happens in the classroom and
school, and better articulation and justification of the educational rationale of
what goes on. Action research provides a way of working which links theory
and practice into the one whole: ideas-in-action. (p. 5)
Kemmis and McTaggart’s statement is an important one. It highlights
the fact that action research is not simply research grafted onto prac-
tice. Rather, it represents a particular attitude on the part of the
practitioner, an attitude in which the practitioner is engaged in criti-
cal reflection on ideas, the informed application and experimentation
of ideas in practice, and the critical evaluation of the outcomes of
such application.
Cohen and Manion (1980) draw a distinction between applied re-
search and action research. They suggest that applied research is
more rigorous and does not claim to contribute directly to the solu-
tion of problems. Action research, on the other hand, is less inter-
ested in obtaining generalisable scientific knowledge than knowledge
for a particular situation or purpose. Action research is situational, or
context-based, collaborative, participatory, and self-evaluative. They
go on to suggest that action research can be utilized towards five gen-
eral ends:
63
David Nunan

1. as a means of remedying problems diagnosed in specific situations,

or of improving in some way a given set of circumstances;
2. as a means of inservice training, providing teachers with new skills
and methods and heightening self-awareness;
3. as a means of injecting additional or innovative approaches to teach-
ing and learning into a system which normally inhibits innovation
and change;
4. asa means of improving the normally poor communications between
the practising teacher and academic researcher;
5. (although lacking the rigour of true scientific research) as a means
of providing an alternative to the more subjective, impressionistic
approach to problem solving in the classroom.
(Cohen and Manion 1980: 211)
I am particularly concerned here with the second of these outcomes, that
is, with the potential of action research to contribute to professional
development, particularly in encouraging self-directed teachers, who are
capable, through action research, of furthering their own professional
self-development.
The notion of the self-directed teacher as classroom researcher is con-
sonant with several other trends in teacher development. For instance,
Bartlett (this volume, Chapter 13) and Lange (this volume, Chapter 16)
both argue a case for the reflective teacher. Such a teacher is one who
“knows the art and craft of teaching... The craft of teaching relates to
the teacher’s specific knowledge of the subject matter, knowledge on
teaching that subject matter, and knowledge on teaching in general. The
art of teaching involves the combination of knowledge and experience
in the many decisions that teachers make as they interact with learners”
(Lange, pp. 247-8).
Lange also develops a model for teacher education which is expe-
riential and problem oriented. Action research is a tool which is
particularly amenable to such an experiential, problem-oriented
approach.

Curriculum development and professional

practice within the AMEP

The AMEP is a large, federally funded English language program, which

has annual student enrolments of 130,000. These are taught by 1,500
teachers in 300 language centres throughout Australia. Until the early
1980s, the AMEP had a centralised curriculum, with a fixed syllabus
incorporated into a set of teaching materials. With a growing diversity
of learners, particularly in the wake of large-scale refugee intakes from

64
 Action research in the language classroom
Southeast Asia, it was realised that such a centralised curriculum was
unable to accommodate the diversity of learner types. A decision was
therefore made to abandon the centralised curriculum for a localised or
school-based curriculum model based on a learner-centred philosophy.
The idea was for teachers to become the principal agents of curriculum
development, as it is the teachers who are best placed to diagnose and
cater for learners’ needs. With teachers as the principal agents of cur-
riculum development, such development itself becomes largely a matter
of appropriate teacher development.
The learner-centred curriculum model created a whole new set of
professional development needs. A smorgasbord approach (i.e., one in
which a list of self-contained options is proposed at the beginning of
the semester from which teachers self-select) was recognised as inade-
quate, and individual state professional development units, along with
the National Curriculum Resource Centre (now the National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research), moved to develop compre-
hensive and integrated training programs, which would provide teachers
with skills in curriculum development and classroom research and
evaluation.

The action research inservice program

Preliminary to the program, participants were asked to video- or au-
diotape their classrooms over several days, and then to select and tran-
scribe a 10- to 15-minute segment in which there was a ‘critical incident’,
or in which a problem occurred, or in which they were trying something
new. In other words, it was not sufficient for participants simply to
transcribe 10 minutes of inactivity or routine activity. Teachers found
that the very act of selecting a particular incident or event revealed
something of their own attitudes towards and beliefs about language
learning and teaching.
The aims of the inservice program were (1) to introduce participants
to techniques and procedures for investigating classroom processes; (2)
to provide participants with the opportunity of applying techniques to
their own teaching; (3) to assist participants in identifying and examining
their own attitudes and beliefs about language and learning; (4) to pro-
vide participants with the opportunity of identifying areas for further
investigation within their own classroom.
There are five stages to the program, each with its own subsidiary
steps:
1. Observing classrooms part 1: theory and practice
2. Observing classrooms part 2: methods and techniques
3. Issues for investigation
65
David Nunan

4, Investigating your own classroom

5. Developing an action research proposal.

STAGE I OBSERVING CLASSROOMS PART I: THEORY

AND PRACTICE

Stage 1 is designed as a general introduction to classroom observa-

tion. Participants are encouraged to identify those aspects of the
classroom which interest them, and to reveal the preconceptions and
beliefs they bring with them to classroom observation. The procedure
for this stage is adapted from Ramani (1987). The resources include
a set of handouts and a videotape of an ESL (English as a second
language) lesson.
This preliminary introductory stage is an important one. As Wright
(this volume, Chapter 6) points out:
A primary goal of all teacher-development programs is to link theory and
practice... Often, however, we may fail to achieve this higher-order goal.
Perhaps the overall approach to the program is top-down, replete with
content in the form of raw, unprocessed theory. Perhaps there is an
overemphasis on teaching techniques at the expense of the broader issues of
methodology. More often than not, the cause may lie in the lack of appeal to
the participants’ apprehension of the relationship between theory and
practice derived from their own experience. (p. 82)

(See also Ramani 1987 and Bowers 1987a for lucid discussions on the
relationship between theory and practice.)

Step 1: Previewing Activity. Participants are introduced to the work-

shop and are told about the lesson they are about to observe. They
are asked to write down the three aspects of the lesson they will be
looking at/for during the lesson. These are summarised on the board
by the coordinator. Participants usually nominate such aspects as
teacher talk, elicitation techniques, wait-time, error correction, varia-
tion and pacing of activities, and exploitation of unexpected or un-
planned occurrences in the classroom. Some of the issues discussed in
the prereading usually make their appearance in the aspects the
teachers wish to observe, and this reinforces the notion that observa-
tion is not value free but will reflect the beliefs and attitudes we have
internalised through various means.
One group of teachers came up with the following list:

Wait-time Materials
Repair techniques Student—teacher interaction
Fun Scope of student response
Questioning Amount of direction

66
 Action research in the language classroom
Class organisation Digressions, good and bad
Lesson objectives Variety of activities
Student/teacher talk time Student—student interaction
Control and initiative Lesson cohesion
Who asks questions Ideological aspects of lesson content
Context for language Teacher language
How language is practised Eliciting techniques
Methods used Evaluation possibilities

Step 2: Viewing the lesson. Participants then view the lesson and make
notes while they are doing so. The lesson which I use for this stage is a
teacher-centred lesson with little group work.

Step 3: Individual and small-group task. Working individually, partic-

ipants write down the three aspects of the lesson they considered most
satisfactory and why, and the three things they found unsatisfactory and
why. With this step, teachers are making evaluative judgments of the
lesson they have observed. They then work in small groups to share
their responses and come up with group reactions. This involves ne-
gotiation and discussion to reach a consensus and forces teachers to
reveal their own preconceptions, value judgments, and theoretical
perspectives.
One group of AMEP teachers, who had been divided into six small
groups, came up with the following reactions to the teacher-dominated
lesson they had observed:

GROUP I
Liked Disliked
Interesting presentation — Overcontrolled lesson
authentic material Too much instructional
Simple lexis language
Animated — good voice range Very little eliciting
Answered own questions
No change of pace

GROUP 2
Liked Disliked
Preparation Limited student interaction
Authentic material Didn’t capitalize on
Friendly, relaxed manner opportunities for
Teacher’s language well communication as they arose
controlled, natural No wait-time
Objectives unclear

67
David Nunan

GROUP 3
Liked Disliked
Students were interested Objective to practice Wh-
Good use of authentic material questions not met
Objective of listening for gist was No wait-time
met No opportunity for digression;
one student eager to talk was
not followed up
Introduced too much and didn’t
give time for digestion; pace
too fast
Too much teacher talk

GROUP 4
Liked Disliked
Lesson cohesive and well planned Pace too fast to complete any
Authentic materials involving 4 task
macroskills No encouragement for students
Interesting context to listen to each other
Lack of student interaction

GROUP 5
Liked Disliked
Authentic materials Teacher talk dominant
Listening comprehension seemed No cohesion — students’
to occur responses not taken up
Good preparation and sense of Set agenda of questions
order Information dominant

GROUP 6
Liked Disliked
Authentic, appropriate materials Teacher dominant, students
Clear production of tape passive
Lack of student interaction
Not enough wait-time
Not enough student practice
Information given not elicited
Aim/purpose unclear
Feedback from only a few
students
Step 4: Feedback. The aspects are listed on the board in two columns,
labeled liked and disliked. Participants, working in their small groups,
then identify which of the statements made by other groups they agree
with and why, and which they disagree with and why. Once again, this

68
 Action research in the language classroom
is an evaluative process, often involving considerable discussion and
negotiation. Each group then reports back to the whole group.

Step 5: Whole-group discussion. There is a general discussion of the

outcomes of Step 4. The coordinator focuses on the extent to which the
issues and areas nominated in Step 1 are reflected in Step 3. It is also
important to focus on conflicting opinions from different groups and to
stimulate discussion on the assumptions and belief systems underlying
these various opinions. In the list here, for instance, most groups liked
the use of authentic materials. This led to an animated discussion on
why authentic materials were considered good.

STAGE 2 OBSERVING CLASSROOMS PART 2: METHODS

AND TECHNIQUES

The aim of Stage 2 is to sensitise participants to the issues, problems,

and questions which might be amenable to action research, and to train
them in the use of various observational techniques and instruments. A
selection of some of the observation instruments used in the workshop
can be found in the Appendix to this chapter.

Step 1: Previewing activity. Participants are given copies of some ob-

servation schedules, and are taken through these. The schedules relate
to lesson analysis, classroom management, task analysis, and classroom
interaction. Each handout is discussed, and queries or problems are
clarified.

Step 2: Small groups. Participants are asked to nominate which aspect

of the lesson they would like to work on: lesson analysis, classroom
management, task analysis, or classroom interaction. They form small
groups accordingly and view a videotaped lesson which focuses on group
work. They then complete the tasks on their handout. Group 4 (on
classroom interaction) is the only one required to complete their schedule
in real time (i.e., while actually viewing the lesson). The other groups
complete their tasks at the conclusion of the viewing period.

Step 3: Feedback. Each group reports back on the results of Step 2, and
the techniques and instruments which they used to analyse the lesson
are discussed. The utility of the instruments and modifications which
might be made to them are discussed.

One of the problems in using real data is that teachers can become
absorbed with the shortcomings of the teacher and lesson on which the
observation is based. While it is only natural for teachers to be critical,

69
David Nunan

it is important that this part of the workshop not degenerate into simply
a critical analysis of the lesson. The important thing is for the participants
to reflect on the nature of classroom observation, and the strengths and
weaknesses of the chosen instruments.
Another potential problem is the tendency for some teachers to view
any lesson which has been videotaped as exemplary. The facilitator must
therefore point out very clearly from the beginning that no assumptions
about the “‘right”” way to teach are being made, and that this is not the
point of the exercise. In fact, it would defeat the purpose of the workshop
if model lessons which had been carefully worked out and rehearsed
were used.

STAGE 3 ISSUES FOR INVESTIGATION

Based on their experiences during Stages 1 and 2, participants explore

some of the issues which are amenable to investigation. It is convenient
to classify these as relating either to the teacher or the learners. Tables
1 and 2 give some idea of the issues teachers might explore. Nunan
(1989) contains an extended discussion of ways in which these issues
might be turned into problems for investigation.

STAGE 4 INVESTIGATING YOUR OWN CLASSROOM

The focus now turns to the participants themselves. This stage is based
on the lesson transcript which participants have prepared prior to the
training program.

Step 1: Preliminary. Participants select a partner with whom to work.

While this stage can be done on an individual basis, participants get
much more out of it if they work with someone else. A degree of trust
is required for this step, and this is something the coordinator needs to
attend to at Stages 1 and 2.
Participants are asked to select some area or aspect of teaching which
interests them and to analyse the interaction, noting in particular issues
relating to the aspect they have selected. As they work they make notes,
which form the basis of a short oral report back to the whole group.

Step 2: Classroom analysis. Participants analyse their lesson extract using

whatever tools they like and provide data on type of student, aim of
lesson, area investigated, what analysis revealed about current practices
and beliefs, what it revealed about the roles of teacher and learners,
whether it revealed anything unexpected or surprising (and what it was),
whether there was a problem, and what issue or question it revealed
which might be followed up.

70
 Action research in the language classroom

TABLE I. ISSUES AND SAMPLE INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS FOR TEACHERS

Issue Investigative questions

Planning What are the bases on which I select my goals and
objectives?
What are the major factors I take into consideration when
selecting content?
Implementation What is the relationship between the lesson plans I draw up
before class and what actually happens in class?
To what extent does my teaching reflect a systematic
procedure of specifying objectives, selecting content and
learning tasks, and evaluating the effectiveness of
instruction?
To what extent is it ad hoc?
What events in the classroom cause me to deviate from my
planned lessons?
Classroom Some of my learners are disruptive. Is there anything in my
management behaviour towards them which might account for this?
What effect will modified behaviour on my part have on
them?
What aspects of learner behaviour do I respond to?
How efficient/effective am I at setting up group work?
Talk How much talking do I do in class? Is this too little, or too
much?
What happens when I vary the amount of talking I do?
How clear and/or useful are the explanations I give to
students?
What sort of questions do I ask?
How and when do I correct errors? With what effect?
What typical patterns of interaction are there between
myself and my learners?
Source: Nunan (1989).

Step 3: Feedback. Each participant then summarises the results of his

or her analysis for the whole group. This step needs to be carried out
briskly, particularly if there are more than fifteen participants. If there
are more than twenty participants, this activity will have to be conducted
in subgroups of eight to ten. It also needs to be carried out sensitively,
as the self-disclosures can be embarrassing. Teachers tend to be their
own harshest critics, as the following comments demonstrate. These
comments were provided by participants in response to the question:
What did you discover about your own teaching as a result of your self-
analysis?
71
David Nunan

TABLE 2. ASPECTS OF LEARNER BEHAVIOUR WHICH MIGHT BE INVESTIGATED IN

THE CLASSROOM bs

Issue Sample investigative question

Learner language: In my teaching, I generally provide an application
developmental features task to follow up a formal presentation. Which
language items do learners actually use in the
application task?
Do learners learn closed class items (e.g., pronouns/
demonstratives) when these are presented as
paradigms, or when they are taught separately
over a period of time?
Learner language: In what ways do turn taking and topic
interaction management vary with the size and composition
of learner groups?
Are learners more effective at conversational
management when such techniques as holding
the floor and bringing in another speaker are
consciously taught?
Tasks Which tasks stimulate the most interaction?
Which tasks work best with mixed-ability groups?
Strategies Is there a conflict between the classroom activities I
favour and those my learners prefer?
Do my best learners share certain strategy
preferences which distinguish them from less
efficient learners?
Source: Nunan (1989).

Teacher talk
I praise, but it is rather automatic.
There was a lot of teacher talk.
I give too many instructions.
I need to give clearer instructions.
There was excessive teacher instruction.
There was too much teacher talk.
Need more comprehension checking.
Need to do more eliciting.
[had tried to avoid the comprehension question list, but ended up asking
just as many questions of my own.
Instructions were unclear.
Some explanations were nonsensical.
I gave no praise.
Instructions and explanations were inadequate.

Pa
 Action research in the language classroom
Explanations to class were confusing.
There were excessive teacher digressions.

Teacher behaviour
I was trying to respond to contrary notions during the lesson (e.g.,
intervention versus nonintervention).
I glossed over difficult topics too quickly.
I realised later there could be strategies to make problems simpler.
I am overdirective.
There was too much teacher domination.
I dominated too much.
I took centre stage, was condescending.
Need for more positive reinforcement.
Need to exploit opportunities as they arise.
I spent more time on particular activities than I had thought.
I found that I dominated when I thought I hadn’t.
I am not so different from other teachers.

Lesson preparation/structuring
Objectives were not clear.
I need to give more thought to timing (wait-time) and not worry too
much about silences.
I need to develop a more analytical approach to my teaching.
Need to complete lessons as planned.
The lesson was not sufficiently well prepared.
I had planned an activity to stimulate conversation, but set up these
activities in a way which prevented this.
I need to search for solutions to problems more thoroughly.

Content
There is a need for cultural input.
Student interest in the topic was lower than I had thought it would be.
There was not enough cultural information provided for the task to be
completed successfully.

Student behaviour
Students need to help each other more.
There should be more use of the students’ first language in the classroom.
Students need to be made aware of lesson objectives.
Need to encourage self-monitoring and self-correction.

Other
There are umpteen aspects of my teaching which need improving.
Context is important.

Wo
David Nunan

STAGE § DEVELOPING AN ACTION RESEARCH PROPOSAL

This final stage is designed to introduce participants to the concept of

action research as a professional development tool.

Step 1: Whole-group discussion. The coordinator introduces participants

to the concept, explaining in some detail the nature and purpose of
action research, and outlining a procedure for conducting an action
research project. Participants are also provided with a sample set of
questions and issues for investigation. The group then works through
the things they discovered about their own teaching (Stage 3, Step 3)
and formulates research questions.

Step 2: Nominating areas for investigation. Participants, working in-

dividually, then nominate those issues they wish to investigate as a result
of taking part in the workshop. One group of participants came up with
the following:
Methodology
Task analysis and the different demands that tasks create
What materials/methods students do/do not respond to
The learning and teaching of vocabulary
Classroom management and interaction
The occurrence of digressions within a lesson by teachers and students
and the extent to which these lead to useful learning outcomes or
simply distract, confuse, and mislead students
The management of classroom interactions
Effective and ineffective giving of instructions
How to increase student talking time (Do students think this is valuable?
Does it enhance learning?)
Professional development and self-evaluation
How do teachers perceive peer analysis? In what ways is it helpful,
threatening, inhibiting?
How teacher development and action research can improve cohesion /
sense of progression from the students’ perspective
Peer teaching/learning for teachers |
Promoting personal responsibility for professional development
Using classroom analysis with new teachers to assist them in developing
their own practices more effectively
Applying skills
Encouraging and monitoring students’ use of English outside the
classroom
Encouraging the use of English outside the classroom

74
 Action research in the language classroom
Affective factors
Student attitude towards games and drama activities
Student perceptions of language learning
Evaluation and assessment
Evaluating effectiveness of teaching
Methods of postlearning arrangement assessment
How to develop classroom tests for end-of-course assessment
Acquisition
Whether plateaus in language learning really exist
Step 3: Whole-group feedback. The participants each give a short oral
presentation, outlining the aspect or area of their own classroom which
they intend to investigate. At this point, the major task for the workshop
leader is to help participants formulate or reformulate their areas for
investigation into a question that is realistic and feasible given the time
and expertise available. The tendency at this point is for teachers to
nominate issues too large in scope for the average practitioner.

Conclusion

Encouraging teachers to become their own classroom researchers can

have a beneficial effect in all areas of the curriculum. In particular, it
has great potential for professional self-development and renewal. In his
handbook on tasks, procedures, and methods of research for teachers,
Walker takes this view:
As teaching has become increasingly professionalized and the management of
educational organizations more systematized, so ‘research’ has increasingly
become something that teachers are expected to include in their repertoire of
skills. By ‘research’ I do not mean detailed knowledge of the literature or
high levels of proficiency in the skills conventionally required by testing and
survey research. For one thing, to become expert in either of these areas
demands more time, more training and more experience than most teachers
are able to accumulate. What is required of teachers, of schools and of
school systems is a range of other research skills, usually in relation to an
immediate issue in one’s own institution. (Walker 1985: 3-4)
According to Walker, skills will be needed for:
reviewing a range of curriculum proposals and judging their likely impact
in practice;
evaluating practice, performance, and policy in teaching and
administration;
providing evidence and analysis of the school’s program for management
purposes;
75
David Nunan

interpreting and assessing information coming to the school from a

variety of sources, including examination boards, assessment and per-
formance units, and the academic world.
Similarly, Hook suggests that a knowledge of and expertise in classroom
observation will provide teachers with:
1. the ability to monitor and describe both their own and their pupils’ activities
and behaviours;
2. an understanding of instructional methods and materials and their application;
3. an awareness of the relationship between classroom behaviours and pupil growth;
4. the ability to modify or change their behaviours on the basis of their understand-
ing of classroom settings.
(Hook 1981: 23)
I believe that the procedures outlined in the body of this paper marry
happily with the observations of Walker and Hook.
In setting out those procedures, there has been little opportunity for
critical appraisal, and there are certainly problematical aspects of the
sort of training program I have outlined. Following Walker (1985), I
would suggest that the following questions brook large:
1. Does one begin by immersing teachers in research projects, providing
instruction in research methods only when this is requested or seems
necessary, or does one begin by providing instruction in research
methods followed by gradual practice in actual cases?
2. To what extent should research projects be collaborative or individual
exercises?
3. Should projects focus on the particularities of specific situations, or
be situated in relation to generalised, propositional knowledge (i.e.,
should the concern be with cases or samples)?
4. Should one prioritize short-term needs or long-term values?
5. How does one identify the appropriate audiences for the research?
Whatever the solutions or resolutions to these dilemmas, I am at one
with Stenhouse (1975) in this assertion:
The uniqueness of each classroom setting implies that any proposal — even at
school level — needs to be tested and verified and adapted by each teacher in
his own classroom. The ideal is that the curricular specification should feed a
teacher’s personal research and development programme through which he is
increasing his understanding of his own work and hence bettering his
teaching... It is not enough that teachers’ work should be studied: they need
to study it themselves. (Stenhouse 1975: 143)

76
 Action research in the language classroom
Appendix: Worksheets, checklists, and schedules
for lesson observation and analysis
Analysing the lesson

Complete the following

1. _ Linguistic objectives of the lesson:

2. Functional/ communicative objectives of the lesson:

3. Steps in the lesson:

> The teacher’s beliefs about the nature of language:

ay:
David Nunan

5. The teacher's beliefs about the nature of learning:

6. Learner groupings (what percentage of the lesson was

devoted to the following organisational patterns?):

Social Organization 9 es
: woes O Products
and Teaching Activity + Activities. Forms of interaction
Small Group
ork

maa
Ne
Pair Wo

Pia
Individual
ac
nee)

(From Wright,T. 1987. Roles of Teachers and Learners.

Oxford:Oxford University Press.)

Work in pairs or small groups to compare your answers.

What similarities and differences are there?
How would you account for these?

78
 Action research in the language classroom

Classroom management
1. Rate the lesson according to the following key:
Key:
1 Does not at all reflect what went on
2 Only marginally reflects what went on
3 Neutral
4 Describes rather well what went on
5 Is a totally accurate reflection of what went on

There were no cultural misunderstandings

The class understood what was wanted at all times

All instructions were clear

Every student was involved at some point

All students were interested in the lesson

The teacher carried out comprehension checks

Materials and learning activities were appropriate

Student groupings and sub-groupings were appropriate

Class atmosphere was positive

The pacing of the lesson was appropriate

There was enough variety in the lesson

The teacher did not talk too much

Error correction and feedback was appropriate

There was genuine communication

There was teacher skill in organising group work

There was opportunity for controlled practice

Students were enthusiastic

General classroom management was good

Adapted from an RSA checklist

(Adapted from Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred
Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)

2 Work in pairs or small groups to compare

your answers.
What similarities and differences are there?
How would you account for these?

2
David Nunan

Task analysis
1. To what extent are the following statements an
accurate reflection of the lesson?

Key
1 not at all
2 slightly
3 very
4 completely

The teacher used realia and authentic materials.

Learners rehearsed, in class, skills they will need
in real communicative situations outside class.

The objectives of the lesson were clear to the learners.

There were opportunities for controlled practice
of specific language points.

The activities were challenging but not threatening.

Learners were required to do something (e.g. solve
a problem, come to a conclusion, complete a task).

Leamers were required to cooperate.

Learners were required to share information (i.e.
there was an information gap component to the
lesson).
There was an evaluation component to the lesson
which would allow learners to judge the degree
to which they had succeeded or failed.

The activities would have been suitable for a mixed

ability class.

(Adapted from Nunan, D. 1988. Syllabus Design. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Work in pairs or small groups to compare your

answers.
What similarities and differences are there?
How would you account for these?

Working with a partner, select the five most important

characteristics of a lesson from the above list.
(Or, alternatively, provide your own characteristics).
For those characteristics which are not reflected in the
lesson, suggest ways in which it might be modified to
reflect these characteristics.
Suggest a follow-up task.

80
 Action research in the language classroom
Classroom interaction
Watch the lesson again, and place a tally mark against
the following events each time they occur.

ee a SO OPO Meg es Le
1 Teacher asks a display question (i.e. a question at ee
to which she knows the answer).

2 Teacher asks a referential question (i.e. a question

to which she does not know the answer).

{Teeter
teveaari |
et
re
(theme/ topic) of the lesson.
cm
aeeentnt orsusinodspo| wot mat wala
romain. een fyg
ES a
a12 Learner talks to another learner.
(eae
ce ae
13 Period of silence or confusion
sins.
tbe aero tsa
In small groups, 1. Compare your tallies. What similarities and differences
discuss the following are there?
How would you account for these?

2. What insights into the lesson, if any, did this activity provide?

3. Do you think there would be any value in audio recording

and rating a segment from one of your own lessons?

81
6 Understanding classroom
role relationships
Tony Wright

Themes and tasks in teacher

development programs

A primary goal of all teacher development programs is to link theory_

and practice. There are a varietyof means for achieving this. Often,
however, we may fail to achieve this higher-order goal. Perhaps the
overall approach to the program is top-down, replete with content in
the form of raw, unprocessed theory. Perhaps there is an overemphasis
on teaching techniques at the expense of the broader issues of meth-
odology. More often than not, the cause may lie in the lack of appeal
to the participants’ apprehension of the relationship between theory and
practice derived from their own experience. (See Widdowson 1984 for
a controversial view on some of these issues.)
This chapter reports on one solution to the problem: Link both pre-
seryice and inservice programs to g-eommon central théms— teacher
and learner roles. There are several reasons for making a focus on teacher
and learner roles a central issue in teacher education.
(1) The importance of teacher and learner roles in an understanding
of language teaching has recently been highlighted in several important
studies. Richards and Rodgers (1986), for example, in an analysis of
language teaching approaches and methods, discuss the role relationships
implicit in different approaches to language teaching. The connections
forged between views of language, views of learning, and the central
teacher and learner relationships are a valuable contribution to estab-
lishing a broader view of the language teaching and learning process.
Figure 1 illustrates the centrality of teacher and learner roles to any
teacher development program.
Teaching can be seen as mediating between language and the learner
within the formal context of the classroom. There are theories of lan-
guage and theories of learning, but a theory of teaching can be drawn
only from classroom experience, or at least can be informed only by
that experience. Thus the relevance of language or learning theory can
be seen orily from the teacher’s and the learners’ viewpoints. A further
implication is that teacher and learner roles must always be seen in
relation to the three poles of the teaching and learning process outlined
in Figure 1.

82
 Understanding classroom role relationships

1. “Informal” acquisition of TL: direct acquisition

Language <——_—_________ Learning

The Learner

2. “Formal” acquisition of TL: teaching as intervention

(classroom language learning)

Language <« — — — ———_______— Learning

eee The Learner
oo
of the (role
trade’’) relationship)

Teaching
The Teacher

Figure 1 Language learning: formal and informal

At the critical level of methodology, Riley (1984) puts the role re-
lationship at the top of the agenda by focusing on learner-centered
approaches to teaching as a counterpoint to more “traditional” ap-
proaches. His collection of research and position papers contains
some notable additions to our understanding of this central theme
(see for example Gremmo and Abe 1984). Finally, Brumfit (1984)
hints at the potential of a wide diversity of teacher and learner be-
haviors in his discussion of fluency and accuracy. A key theme is the
need for variety of learning tasks for different linguistic and commu-
nicative focuses and the concomitant need for a flexibility of teacher
and learner roles. None of these valuable and provocative sources can
ever be more than a blueprint for practice, however. They are tem-
plates to be set against experience — experience that can be gained
only in the classroom. A consideration of teacher and learner roles
therefore generates a wide range of important pedagogical and meth-
odological issues.
(2) The teacher-learner role relationship lies at the very heart of the
classroom process. Learning a language is a social activity above all,
and in a classroom setting, it is subject to a unique set of social con-
ventions. These derive in part from the deeper and less accessible social
and psychological dimensions of the teacher-learner relationship. The
language classroom is a social setting with its own conventions, norms,
and behaviors (see Breen 1985). It is an essentially human institution,
83
Tony Wright

with all the positive and problematical characteristics of such an insti-

tution. At a more accessible level are other influences on the role rela-
tionship, such as the learning tasks mediated, the nature of the language
data being worked upon, and the physical organization of that setting.
At the surface we are able to observe in-role and out-of-role teacher and
learner behavior in any classroom through the interaction of partici-
pants, content, and tasks. All these layers are interconnected and mu-
tually supporting.
These issues can thus be approached from different standpoints,
depending on the interests of participants and overall program goals.
An investigation of roles raises and addresses issues related to both
classroom behavior and underlying value systems and attitudes held
by individuals and groups. It also touches on issues that arise from a
consideration of expectations of learning content and the ways in
which teaching and learning take place. Naturally, decisions have to
be made as to the emphasis placed on such issues in a teacher prepa-
ration program. These questions assist the program designer in first
planning and later reacting to the outcomes of action during the pro-
ram. Their existence also helps avoid the temptation to transmit
models of behavior and to indulge in cure-alls. Further, risks of using
blanket terminologies (e.g., teacher as “‘facilitator” or “‘guide”) with-
out reference to actual activities or behaviors can also be avoided by
constant reference to the issues raised by the _teacher-learner
relationship.
(3) An understanding and awareness of the intricacies of the social
and_ psychological processes of the classroom
is central to effective ~
teacher development, for this focus captures not only the reality of the
classroom but also has direct personal relevance to participants on
teacher development programs. Questions raised by an exploration of
teacher and learner roles have an implicit appeal to the concerns of new
entrants to the profession. They may be asking themselves, “What do I
actually do when I teach?” and ‘‘What have I got to offer learners?”
Experienced practitioners may have such questions as “Should I change
my ways? Am I succeeding at present? What do new ideas mean for my
daily work?” and “What is the basis for what Iam doing in the classroom
at present?” An understanding of roles also mediates between theory
and practice, because it focuses on the people most intimately involved
in the translating of theory into practice, who are able to test and modify
theory through practice, and who are in the enviable position of being
able to derive theory from practice — teachers. Investigating roles of
teachers and learners thus has both theoretical and, most importantly,
personal relevance.
The procedures outlined in the remainder of this chapter are based
on these three characteristics of the teacher-learner role relationship.
84
 Understanding classroom role relationships

Some tasks and procedures for raising issues of

teacher and learner roles
From attitudes and values to the classroom and back
Participants in inservice programs do not usually attend such programs
to have their value structures rearranged or attitudes changed. Rather,
participants would most probably prefer that these remained intact; it
may well be presumptuous as well as unrealistic on the part of the
program leaders to insist that fundamental changes at this level be ac-
complished. However, effective participation in a program may neces-
sitate teachers coming to terms with their deeper levels of thought and
action. A particularly effective method of approaching the question of
attitudes and values is through observation of teaching wherever this is
possible, and reflection on that experience. The procedure that follows
was designed to let teachers match their own perceptions of teacher and
learner behavior with what they observe in a classroom (particularly
when what they might observe is in some way different or alien to them)
and then later to reflect on the observation.

STAGE I

The participants first undertake awareness activities aimed at orienting

them to salient features of classroom activity and at the same time
penetrating the deeper, more personal layers of experience and value.
Reactions to views about teacher and learner behavior are the basis of
these activities. The choice of initial input is important. Video recordings
of classroom activity may seem an obvious choice for input media, but
I rarely use them, as they preempt so many issues and sometimes deflect
the attention away from the sorts of “remembering work”’ that may
raise the values and attitudes to the surface. Rather than stimulate par-
ticipants to reveal personal views, video recordings have a tendency to
impose their own schemata.
Rather, the use of written descriptions of lessons, which let readers
“read in” detail and provide their own visual representations (see Day,
this volume, Chapter 4, for an example), or questionnaires such as the
following prove a productive way of starting the process. The very open-
endedness of either written descriptions or questionnaires is likely to
provoke more remembered material from participants.
Identifying beliefs and attitudes about language learning

Quickly respond to the statements that follow by checking them if you agree
with them, putting an X if you disagree with them, or leaving them blank if
you cannot make up your mind.

85
Tony Wright
. Teachers usually stand up at the front of the class when teaching.
. Learners are usually arranged at desks in rows.
. Teachers decide on how fast the learners should work on learning tasks.
. Teachers set questions for the learners to answer.
. Learners make mistakes which teachers correct.
. Classrooms are noisy, busy places.
. Learners compete with each other to give answers to teachers’ questions.
KH. The textbook usually guides the lesson.
ONNDNNADBWNHN

Now do the following:

a. Compare your responses with a colleague’s.
b. With your colleague, add three more statements that you think typify the
classroom situation in which you are normally accustomed to working.
c. For statements that you were unable to decide upon a response to, note
your difficulties. Discuss them with your colleague.
Now look at the following statements. These statements describe classroom
behavior that could be positively or negatively valued. Put + by the ones you
think should be encouraged and put — by the ones you would discourage.
Learners stand up when they answer questions.
Teachers praise correct answers from learners.
Teachers always provide model answers to learning exercises.
Teachers follow lesson plans.
i Learners
Ee collaborate on answers to questions or exercises the teacher
sets.
Learners suggest how exercises might be done.
Learners respect teachers’ experience and knowledge.
Teachers investigate the processes of their own classroom.
es Learners
Same reveal personal details about themselves in class.
10. Teachers discipline learners.
Again, compare your answers with a colleague.
Now form a small group, say, five persons, and try to write up to five more
statements that accurately reveal personal attitudes regarding teacher and
learner behavior in classrooms.

SAGES 2

A class discussion follows the group work. During this discussion, the
session leader collects the “typical classroom” statements participants
have produced and elicits the features from the original list that have
been checked. (Alternatively, participants can write their own material
on flip charts.) Further items that may come up during this phase are
added if participants agree that they are typical of their own situation.
The new statements about valued and unvalued classroom behavior
are then collected, and participants are asked to compare the lists and
to find common themes. These are recorded by the participants as they
emerge, with assistance from the session leader if necessary.

86
 Understanding classroom role relationships

STAGE3
Participants are now invited to consider the following questions:
— Is there a link between what we value and our behavior in the role
of teacher?
— Would we expect to see similar behavior in classrooms other than
our own?
— What factors might influence teachers and learners to behave differ-
ently in different classrooms?
The questions are linked to the themes drawn from the previous activity.
The group’s findings are discussed and noted.

STAGE 4
This stage involves preparation for observation and is motivated by these
questions:
— What sorts of behavior or features of the lesson shall I watch for and
listen to?
— What will these tell me about classroom role relationships?
— In what ways does the classroom I observe differ from mine and in
what ways is it similar to my own?
The group members, either individually or in pairs, now generate a set
of questions or themes to guide their observations. See Nunan (this
volume, Chapter 5) for examples of teacher and learner behaviors the
participants can focus on during an observation.

STAGE §
The participants now observe an actual lesson and attempt to focus on
the questions they have generated. Afterward they are encouraged to
compare their impression of the lesson with that of the teacher. See Day
(Chapter 4) and Nunan (Chapter 5) for guidance on how to complete
classroom observations.

STAGE 6

Stage 6, postobservation, is a crucial stage in the sequence of activities.

Decisions about how to deal with the feedback can affect the next stage
of the program if the program is continuing. The initial stage of the
feedback attempts to see how far participants were able to answer their
own questions and what might have prevented them from doing so. This
can lead to a discussion on the very purpose of observation itself. Par-
ticipants could at this stage be asked to consider how useful such pro-
87
Tony Wright

cedures would be in their own situation if new ideas were being tried
out and how far teachers could monitor their own work when using a
new idea in their own classrooms. This is especially valuable if the next
phase of a program involves work on new teaching techniques or ma-
terials that embody new methodological principles. One of the main
aims of such retrospective work is to keep open the links to the pro-
spective work, and to seek to clarify links between one’s expectations
and the realities that might confront the teacher or observer. Further,
there needs to be a way of making this plain — hence the use of the
stored material from the first session outlining themes and ideas that
participants have established. These may now be used as the basis for
discussing the potential effects of change, guided by such questions as
“What aspect of classroom behavior is most sensitive to the effects of
an altered teacher role?” and “Will altered teacher roles affect... 2”
(Here any of the earlier themes can be entered and as many as seems fit
be dealt with, while others are saved for later work.)
It is at these critical junctures that participants may come to an aware-
ness of how different classroom roles may on the one hand be seen as
behavior, and on the other as reflecting deeper beliefs, attitudes, and
values regarding the classroom process. It is crucial that the session leader
not be judgmental at these junctures — it is a paradox that the “trainer”
may be expected to be so. While it may be easier said than done, and
often the session leader may be forced to give his or her own views, it
is often more productive to act reflexively, constantly challenging the
participants to believe in the importance and relevance of their own
views. One way of avoiding judgmental behavior is for the session leader
to change roles and become the observer while the group holds its own
evaluation. This is naturally a more risky venture, but it is well worth
trying if the group is amenable to the idea. After all, many of the par-
ticipants we deal with happily adopt a learner role congruent with norms
from their own sociocultural and classroom backgrounds; one way of
demonstrating alternative possibilities is to adopt a variety of roles as
program tutor or leader. This course of action might, however, lead to
disappointed expectations among participants, so it needs to be intro-
duced judiciously and constantly monitored and evaluated. It can prove
to be a rich source of issues and themes when working on the deeper
levels of teacher and learner roles.
2

Exploring the implications of new teaching materials

and ideas
Working on the “‘tools of the trade” (e.g., teaching techniques and ma-
terials) in a vacuum is always going to present teacher educators and
participants with problems. Without access to live classes or opportu-

88
 Understanding classroom role relationships
nities to actually practice with new ideas and materials, participants in
inservice programs may resent an abstract approach, lacking as it inev-
itably does the opportunity for live feedback and evaluation. Yet the
embodiment of any new teaching approach is either the material or the
techniques that carry it to the classroom. In this section, I focus on
the more problematical experience of introducing new ideas and tech-
niques to participants when they may have been removed from their
normal classroom environment for “refresher courses.”
Underlying any set of teaching materials or techniques is a series of
assumptions regarding the nature of language and learning. Further,
there may be explicit statements about the ways in which teacher and
learners should work on the materials in the classroom. (See, for ex-
ample, Candlin and Edelhoff’s Challenges: Teacher’s Handbook, 1982.)
More often than not, however, the actual classroom processes and the
roles that these activate are implicit, whether in rubrics, teachers’ notes,
or in the nature of the exercises themselves. These hidden agendas are
the substance of any effort to bring teachers to an understanding of the
materials or techniques. They can be approached in two ways: (1) by
examining and uncovering the views of language and seeing what these
mean for teachers’ and learners’ roles or (2) by examining the vehicles
— the tasks, activities, and exercises — that the learners and teachers are
called to work on, again uncovering the implications for potential class-
room practice. In practical terms, the process may be of limited value,
the feedback from live trials being a missing link. From the point of
view of teachers’ awareness, however, the process is extremely valuable,
equipping them with the means of being critical, both of current practice
and of future developments. This awareness also appeals to the deeper
levels of awareness referred to in the previous section, touching on
attitudes toward language, knowledge, and the learning process. With
any teacher development program that features teacher and learner roles
as a central focus, these deeper levels of awareness are a constantly
unfolding phenomenon and are always borne in mind as a point of
reference.

STAGE I

Let us assume that new materials which are founded on new interpre-
tations of grammar are the focus of the course or program. The first
phase of the work may involve a series of awareness-raising tasks focused
on the participants’ views on the nature of language and language
learning.
Task 1
Comment on these views regarding the nature of grammar and the teaching
and learning of grammar. Do you agree with any of them? Which ones? Are

89
Tony Wright
there any that you cannot agree with? Would you add anything further to
any of them?
1. Students learn grammar through constant correction and repetition of
forms and structures.
2. It’s a waste of time actually teaching grammar; students learn it anyway.
3. It doesn’t matter if we make mistakes — the message is much more
important than the form.
4. It is pointless trying to teach grammar in isolation from the other major
areas of language. In fact, the areas are so strongly interconnected that we
should adopt an integrated approach to language teaching.
5. Students expect and want us to “do grammar” in our classes. Why should
we disappoint them?
6. Now that we know that the communicative approach is the best way to
do things, we can drop all the old grammar-based material.
7. There isn’t a grammar of English that has descriptions to cover every
aspect of language.
Participants are invited first to do the task on their own, and then to
compare their views with those of a colleague. They are then asked to
move directly to the next task.
Task 2
Comment on these errors made by learners. For instance, can you classify
them? Is there a pattern in the errors? Any other comments?
*He makes me to do it.
*He made me sit down and told me about it.
*Nowadays all children are to go to school.
*This instrument is called thermometer.
*There are a few mosquitoes, so we suffer from malaria.
*If I tell him he would come.
*He ran too fast to catch the bus.
*In the South West there is so much forest.
oR *In the past we had traveled on foot.
ly
See
10. *I am thinking you are wrong.
Are these the sorts of error that your students make? What links can you see
between the treatment of error and your role as a language teacher? How
closely does the treatment of error relate to the teacher’s general attitude to
and views on the nature of language? Are students’ errors a reasonable basis
from which to begin teaching?
When participants have completed these two tasks, they are asked to
consider Barnes’s (1976) characterizations of “transmission and inter-
pretation teachers” in the light of their relationship with participants’
views on grammar and on learner error. (See Wright 1987: 62 for a
summary and discussion.) The consideration of these two poles of teach-
ers’ attitudes to knowledge and the behavior associated with the attitudes
allows participants the opportunity to see how their own attitudes to-

90
 Understanding classroom role relationships —
ward grammar relate to their attitudes toward error and the status and
acquisition of knowledge in general. Questions that teachers might ask
of teaching materials are now generated. For example, “Does the ma-
terial allow for different interpretations, or is only one outcome or
answer possible?” “Is the teacher always the final arbiter of right and
wrong with the materials, or can learners impose their own definitions
of right and wrong?”

STAGE 2

Participants are now presented with some new teaching material to work
on. They are invited first to attempt the language learning task for
themselves and then to discuss its implications in line with the questions
they have generated and the questions that accompany the material. The
session leader can at this stage act as an observer while the participants
are doing the tasks, noting different working styles and acting as a guide
where necessary. An example of the material that might be used by the
group follows:
Task: How Shall I Say It?
A department head wanted to call a staff meeting, so he sat down to write a
memo to the staff members. He was fairly new to the job and was anxious to
give as good an impression to his staff as he could. However, he was faced
with a seemingly infinite range of choices as to how to phrase his memo.
Some of the ideas that came to him appear below. Which one did he
finally choose and why did he reject the others?
1. Staff meeting. 2 p.m. Tomorrow.
. Can we have a staff meeting at 2 p.m. tomorrow?
How about a staff meeting at 2 p.m. tomorrow?
Let’s all meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow.
When the staff meets at 2 p.m. tomorrow we will discuss the following.
Could the staff get together for a meeting at 2 p.m. tomorrow?
I hope no staff member will forget the staff meeting at 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Is it all right if we have a staff meeting at 2 p.m. tomorrow?
CHONAARWH
We'll have a staff meeting at 2 p.m. tomorrow.
10. I think we ought to have a staff meeting at 2 p.m. tomorrow.
11. There will be a staff meeting at 2 p.m. tomorrow.
12. At 2 p.m. tomorrow staff should meet in the teachers’ room.
What features of grammar does this exercise exploit? Is there a correct
answer?
What sorts of activity would the teacher have to undertake in a class where
the learners were working on an exercise like this?
Do you find this type of exercise unusual? How would your learners react to
this type of task?
Having worked through these tasks, participants should now be in a
position to draw up a list of criteria with which to evaluate any new
wl
Tony Wright
teaching technique or teaching materials that they may be asked or wish
to work with in their own classes. The combination of awareness-raising
and experiential processes outlined earlier generates a vast amount of
material, and the session leader is faced with the daunting task of as-
sisting the participants in making sense of it all. By constantly referring
back to the teachers’ own experience and knowledge of their own class-
rooms, the session leader should be able to elicit themes that characterize
the norms of the classrooms where they work. At the same time, one
has to be aware of the possibility of discussion becoming too abstract
or diffuse (or even too theoretical). Too often teacher educators assume
teachers to be in a state of pretheoretical or atheoretical ignorance before
they embark on such programs; yet participants have most likely built
up theories over years of actual experience in the classroom. The role
of teacher educators might better be to make these theories explicit
during the course.
One advantage of the procedures outlined here is that the tasks may
be attempted in any order, depending on the focus of the program as a
whole. Thus one could begin with Barnes’s conceptualization of “trans-
mission and interpretation teachers”’ (a deeper-level task, probing values
and attitudes) and move on to the materials, ending with a discussion
of the nature of the view of language being presented. A more risky but
nonetheless exciting alternative is to allow participants to work through
the materials in any order that they wish to and with whatever orga-
nization of the group they prefer. These choices depend on the underlying
philosophy of the program itself; if the program is to introduce partic-
ipants to a process syllabus, for example, the latter course would seem
most natural. Even if the aspirations of the program are no more than
“refreshment,” the organizational issues hinted at earlier must be con-
fronted. Designers of programs, session leaders, and tutors all transmit
their roles through the ways in which they organize their programs. This
in itself could become a central issue in a teacher development program,
where appropriate.

Introducing teacher and learner roles

I shall here briefly describe a procedure worked out with a colleague,
Roy Taylor, for introducing preservice trainees’ to major themes in
language teaching, including teacher and learner roles. Through a series
of four lessons in a language unknown to the participants, we introduce
such broad themes as views of language, views of learning, classroom

1 The course referred to is a 4-year bachelor of education (honors) undergraduate course

for overseas students in teaching English as a second language. The sequence outlined
takes place in the first four weeks of the course.

92
 Understanding classroom role relationships
organization, selection of language items for teaching and learning, and
teacher and learner roles, showing how the themes interrelate and
how they are interdependent — that by altering one element, the others
change, too.

STAGE I

Stage 1 consists of lessons in a foreign language. In each of the four

sessions, the group is taught the foreign language for forty minutes, the
teacher choosing a different “method” each time. The “methods” include
an adaptation of the Direct Method, a Grammar-Translation lesson,
Community Language Learning, and what we call an “immersion”? les-
son in which the group is cast adrift with a written text in the foreign
language, dictionaries, and grammars, and asked to try to translate the
text into English.

STAGE 2

The lesson is followed up with a short evaluation session that focuses

mainly on how the group enjoyed the lesson, whether they feel they
learned anything, how similar it was to previous learning experiences
(of language and other subject areas), and what they think were the
positive and negative features of the lesson.

STAGE3
A follow-up session outlining the main theoretical bases of each lesson
is held, concentrating on learning theories and linking these with views
of language. Teacher and learner roles are introduced to link in with
these themes. All the more ‘‘abstract”’ ideas are linked to actual pro-
cedures and examples in the lessons. Short readings relevant to the
theoretical basis of each lesson are also discussed, both in these sessions
and as take-home assignments.

STAGE 4
The trainee group is divided into smaller working groups at the end of
the sequence of four sessions and is asked to draw up a summary of the
main features of the language lessons they have participated in. (A sample
of some students’ summaries is included in the Appendix.)
The course in TESOL principles and methods then proceeds to explore
the themes laid down during the language learning sequence in more
detail and depth, with longer sessions on learning and factors affecting
learning, such as motivation and sociocultural factors. Teacher and
learner roles are not only a focal point of reference but a unifying feature,
for they are a channel to the actual classroom situation in which teaching
93
Tony Wright

and learning take place. The depth of the training group’s work is nat-
urally limited by their near total lack of experience as teachers. Never-
theless, as learners they have a great deal to offer to the debate. Our
experience after three years of running this course is that groups are
better able to see the relevance and implications of teaching techniques
and teaching materials (which are introduced in the second phase of the
program) when these are placed in a broader framework.

Implications for further work

The rationale and procedures set out in the preceding sections are aimed
at demonstrating some of the possibilities that a focus on teacher and
learner roles can bring about in teacher development programs. As I
stated earlier, they are illustrations of ongoing work in what is a com-
paratively new field. Thus there are doubts and questions. These may
be summarized as follows:
1. What sorts of task are most suitable for raising teacher-learner role
issues in teacher development programs? Are awareness-raising ex-
ercises potentially too threatening to participants, particularly when
they engage value and belief systems? A great deal of sensitivity to
participants’ feelings and cultural backgrounds is predicated. This is
particularly the case when dealing with language issues with non-
native speaker participants. (It may be of interest to note that all the
activities described have been used with nonnative speakers of English
from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds.)
2. What sorts of task sequence are desirable? Do we begin at the deeper
levels of values, attitudes, and beliefs and work outward? Do we
begin by examining abstractions like teaching material? Or start with
on-the-spot classroom observations? My experience to date suggests
that the former and the latter are suitable, but that examining ab-
stractions is best informed by remembering or observational work.
As I have already suggested, there are exciting possibilities for par-
ticipants to devise their own routes through banks of tasks once work
has begun, starting at whatever level they feel is appropriate.
3. When should these issues be introduced to a teacher development
program? At the outset? Or when the agendas have been laid down?
One observation I have made is that once participants confront the
deeper issues, they are intuitively attracted to them and, because they
perceive the personal relevance of the issues, pursue them relentlessly
to the near exclusion of other issues. Program designers need to work
out plans with this in mind if they are to use teacher and learner
roles as a theme. Alternatively, one may argue that, despite its in-
94
 Understanding classroom role relationships
herent risks and drawbacks, the more open-ended approach advo-
cated in this chapter, with issues as the primary content of the
programs, renders redundant an instrumental approach concentrat-
ing on techniques and “‘new ideas” in a linear, instrumental fashion.
4. The “trainer role” paradox is inevitably a critical issue in programs
that focus on teacher and learner roles. One is forced to reconsider
one’s own role in the light of participating in values- and attitude-
related activities. Yet participants have expectations. To what extent
does one disappoint and challenge these expectations? How does the
“trainer as model teacher” scenario stand up under such scrutiny?
A natural development of the issues I have been discussing is the
potential for action research as an element of teacher development pro-
grams. (See Hopkins 1985 for an excellent introductory guide to this
area, and Nunan, this volume, Chapter 5.) Teacher educators content-
edly implant new ideas in teachers in inservice programs and sincerely
wish them well when they return to their classrooms. However, they
often fail to provide them with the means to monitor and explore their
classrooms once they return. Seen in the light of curriculum renewal and
reform, these proposals are not without significance. Not only do teach-
ers require understanding of new ideas, they also need the means to
examine the effects of these ideas. Through action research, a unity of
purpose of curriculum design, syllabus design and development, teacher
development, and the means of evaluation is forged. An extension of
the types of reflective activity I have outlined is action research — re-
flection lays the foundation. The next challenge for all participants in
curriculum implementation, from teacher development program design-
ers to teachers — some may say to classroom language learners — is to
begin to explore this area.

95
Tony Wright

Appendix: Group reactions to four different

methods of instruction

Content Method 1 Method 2

Language items Teacher selects vocabulary. Teacher selects grammar/
vocabulary.
Language skills Listening and speaking. Writing and reading.

Teacher’s role Trainer (very strict). Teacher (strict).

Learner’s role Mechanical. Depressing.

Classroom Teacher in front of class. Teacher in front of class.

organization
Learning theory Inductive: “‘Audiolingual,” Deductive: ““Grammar
Directs? Translation.”
Advantages Learners are less pressured, Learners can generate
thus encouraged to learn in sentences because rules
a relaxed way. are given.
Disadvantages Time consuming because Neglect of spoken form.
people learn at different
speeds.
Like Easier to remember. A faster system to
remember.
Dislike Learners were forced. Learners are very much
pressured.

96
 Understanding classroom role relationships

Method 3 Method 4
Students select items. Teacher selects items
(texts).
Speaking, listening, and Reading.
writing (a little).
Helper (tutor/counselor). Advisor (assistant).
Not very active as a whole. Active (have to translate,
write, etc.).
Students in a circle with Teacher in front of class.
teacher outside of circle.
Affective: “Community Deductive: “Immersion”
Language Learning” (CLL). (total immersion).
More engagement and Helps cultivate
involvement for the learner. independence.
Facts are not united.
The students who do not Materials selected are
get involved will not fully irrelevant to learners.
benefit from CLL.
The students are under no
pressure to talk.
Difficult to memorize if In the end, if learners are
learners do not participate fast, frustration occurs.
in class and do not listen
carefully.

D7
Questions and tasks

Chapter 4 (Day)

1. Select a teacher preparation program you are familiar with. What

is the balance between subject-matter knowledge and action-systems
knowledge?

2. Make an ethnographic record of a videotaped lesson or part of a

lesson along the lines suggested by Day. What does it reveal about the
lesson that was not immediately apparent from a casual viewing? How
long did it take you to compile the ethnography? (Express this as a
percentage of actual lesson time.) What are the difficulties likely to
confront student teachers in doing an ethnography? How might these
be overcome?

3. Analyze a lesson or lesson segment using one of the following:

— seating chart
— verbal-flow diagram
— at-task chart
— movement-pattern diagram
What insights did this provide? What would be the likely advantages/
difficulties for student teachers in undertaking this exercise?

4. What is the sense in which Day uses the term classroom manage-
ment? Is this similar to or different from the sense in which Richards
(Chapter 1) uses the term?

Chapter 5 (Nunan)

5. How is the term action research defined by Nunan? What are its
key characteristics? Why should teachers be encouraged to adopt an
action research orientation to their classrooms? What problems are likely
to be created by this?

6. How might the program described by Nunan be integrated into a

program you are familiar with? What changes/adaptations/modifications
would you make?

98
 Ouestions and tasks
_7. Analyze a lesson or part of a lesson using one or more of the
instruments set out in the Appendix to Nunan. What insights are revealed
that are not immediately apparent from a casual or unstructured ob-
servation of the lesson?

Chapter 6 (Wright)
8. Wright stresses the importance of studying teacher and learner role
relationships, arguing that awareness of these relationships is central to
effective teacher development. List and prioritize the reasons he advances
for this argument.

9. What are the dangers of getting preservice and inservice trainees to

confront their own attitudes and value structures? How does Wright
suggest that issues relating to values and attitudes be raised?

10. Select some teaching materials and develop a series of tasks, along
the lines suggested by Wright, that teachers-in-preparation might un-
dertake, which might reveal assumptions in the materials about the
nature of language and language learning.

11. How potentially useful is the technique of teaching student teachers

a foreign language as a way of introducing major themes in language
teaching? Evaluate the procedure outlined by Wright. What changes,
modifications, or adaptations, if any, would you make?

General

12. Using data from Chapters 3—6, summarize the benefits to teachers-
in-preparation of direct classroom observation and analysis.

13. In what ways do Chapters 3—6 address the problem of relating

theory and practice?

14. What similarities and differences are there in the programs described
by Nunan and Wright?

99
.x - ety tee

> ee erat Ahan

‘ aie feeaa frharks: AIDC

: Pp xchat yatyeg ts 7h
eet Wally
ie
hi (8 es
¥ 4 = >

ar Fisytbie37 SON

ba pee Py
Pes vier

peghithaai nos y
ohy Pas is rites Pe
inirersie
axane “ee ri mine ba
ere +e make teoh eiaiotinneh+Aaah honk Wome am
98, ARI, 6 OS > agai agianss
oh hinx seen tes
jeu . fa i 4% ae

a Poa
; AGE ey

a 3 ig

rae :
neident: sh ta) ube co <5
-

a , F Sas Se > 4 :
was a Ae! eves tiie lie

et ee
Part III The practicum

In many teacher education programs, the practicum or practice teaching

experience is the central component. It is through the process of teaching
a class of foreign language learners and receiving feedback that the
student teacher has a chance to apply knowledge and skills gained else-
where or to develop strategies for handling the different dimensions of
a language lesson. Although a number of other chapters in the book
deal with processes that relate to the practicum, the three chapters in
this section are devoted specifically to this subject.
Freeman in Chapter 7 examines the interaction between the teacher
educator and the student teacher. The language teacher educator is pre-
sented as one who can intervene in, confirm, and/or redirect the student
teacher’s learning process throughout the practice teaching experience.
Freeman outlines various types of intervention, which are distinguished
by the educator-trainee relationship on which they are based and/or the
purposes they are meant to achieve. Freeman proposes that to be max-
imally effective, the form of intervention and the relationship it estab-
lishes should match the aspects of teaching that intervention is intended
to teach the student teacher. The chapter concludes with a paradigm for
how and why to intervene in the student teacher’s practice teaching.
In Chapter 8 Gebhard describes an ethnographic study in practice
teaching based on seven inexperienced ESL (English as a second lan-
guage) student teachers. He describes the interaction that takes place
during the practicum and explores the behavior changes that take place
as a result of such interaction. The research indicates that five of the
seven teachers changed in four main areas: setting up and carrying out
a lesson, use of classroom space, selection of content, and treatment of
students’ language errors. The implications of the study for teacher
educators and researchers are also discussed.
In the last chapter of this section, Pennington explores five metaphors
for teaching: teaching as magic, teaching as art, teaching as profession,
teaching as craft, and teaching as science. She opts for the view of
teaching as profession, which requires the development of both skills
and judgment. The practicum provides an arena where knowledge and
skills can be developed. In particular, it can help the student teacher
develop self-knowledge and knowledge of the students. Techniques for
developing such knowledge are provided.
101
Part II

The authors of these chapters share a common concern with the con-
cept of professionalism? Underlying each chapter is a view of the teacher
as autonomous professional, and each author approaches the practicum
with the educational implications of professionalism in mind. Of par-
ticular significance is the establishment of appropriate relationships be-
tween teacher educator and student teachers.

102
7 Intervening in practice teaching
Donald Freeman

Teaching is first and foremost a “helping profession,” which depends

on the relationship created between the teacher and the learner. It is
crucial, therefore, to determine which forms of help, or teaching, are
most effective within that relationship. Such a determination depends
on a number of variables: the purpose of the help (its objective), the
particular context in which the help is being offered, and the interactions
that make up the process of offering and receiving it. This chapter
examines a specific teaching—helping relationship, that of language
teacher educator and student teacher, within the context of practice
teaching. The purpose of this relationship is for the student teachers to
develop, practice, and refine their competence as language teachers.
A particular orientation to teacher preparation in language teaching
underlies this stated purpose. It assumes that the goal is for student
teachers to develop the independent capacity to make informed teaching
decisions and to assess the impact of those decisions on both their own
and their students’ learning (Freeman, 1989) — in the words of Orem
(1981), ‘‘to know what they do, how and why.” This orientation relies
on two broad educational strategies, teacher training and teacher de-
velopment (Freeman 1982; in press), which when in balance lead to
achievement of this goal. (See Richards, this volume, Chapter 1.)
The key issue is balance: between the strategies themselves, and also
between the strategy and the content to be taught by that strategy. A
“training” strategy, when it is used exclusively, can lead to an over-
emphasis on teaching skills and behaviors at the expense of developing
the student teacher’s independent resources and capacity to take charge
of what he or she is doing. It does not follow however that “training”
has an exclusively negative impact; rather, there are aspects of teaching
that are most effectively and efficiently conveyed, or taught, in this
manner.
The “development” strategy, in contrast, emphasizes the processes of
reasoning that underlie what the student teacher does in the classroom;
the teachers’ relation to what they know and how they know it (Shulman
1987) is the central focus. This is clearly appropriate and effective for
complex and idiosyncratic aspects of teaching, although it may be less
so for discrete teaching skills or behaviors. The appropriate balance
depends, then, on the subject matter: the aspects of teaching to be learned
103
Donald Freeman

or taught. Thus the teacher educator—student teacher relationship must

be seen within this broad framework; its purpose, interactions, and
outcomes — both intended and actual — must be viewed according to the
aspects of teaching they address.
In this chapter I propose a general view of the teacher educator—
student teacher relationship and discuss three types of intervention that
can take place within it in order to achieve particular purposes. These
purposes are based on what the educator is trying to teach the student
teacher about teaching and reflect the former’s perceptions of the practice
teaching segment as well as teaching overall. However, the way in which
those perceptions are conveyed — the process of intervening — is itself
teaching, and is as important as what the educator intends to convey.
There is, therefore, a peculiar duality: in intervening, the educator
teaches the student teacher teaching. The student teacher, in turn, learns
from both the content and the process of the intervention (Freeman
1987).
Thus an examination of the relationship between the content and the
process of such interventions seems important. Before doing so, however,
it may be useful to define the scope of the following discussion by
clarifying a few key terms.

A glossary of key terms

By student teacher | mean anyone engaged in learning to teach, whether

through a formal educational setting, such as a course or practicum; on-
the-job orientation; training; or an inservice program. The term student
teacher need not imply someone with little or no previous teaching
experience. He or she may be new to teaching generally, to language
teaching specifically, or may be experienced in either or both. The level
and type of the student teacher’s experience helps determine the type of
intervention the educator chooses.
By teacher educator | refer to the individual who oversees and in some
way facilitates the student teacher’s learning process. I purposefully do
not use the term teacher trainer, as | want to maintain a distinction
between the processes of teacher training and teacher development as
outlined earlier, which coexist within the superordinate framework of
teacher education (Freeman, 1989). Insofar as teacher trainer can refer
to the person who oversees practice teaching, it would be accurate. If it
connotes how that function is exercised, it limits, in effect, the educator
to one strategy of intervention and thus confuses the discussion.
By practice teaching | mean any portion of teaching, from micro-
teaching to teaching an individual lesson to a sustained practicum, over
which the student teacher has direct and individual control. Thus a

104
 Intervening in practice teaching

master teacher—student teacher arrangement (that is, one in which master

teacher and student teacher co-teach a class) may qualify as practice
teaching in this definition; it depends entirely on whether the student
teacher is responsible and therefore accountable for the teaching that
takes place. Practice teaching can occur as part of a formal teacher
education program or it can be part of an on-the-job orientation or
development effort, as long as there is someone who fulfills the function
of teacher educator in that context.
Finally, by intervention I refer to the way in which the teacher educator
expresses specific perceptions and input about the practice teaching to
the student teacher. This includes both the process (how the teacher
educator intervenes) and the content (what input he or she introduces).
Perceptions refer to what the teacher educator sees in the practice teach-
ing, and input refers to what the teacher educator may decide to include
in the intervention based on what he or she has seen. The term inter-
vention has an unfortunate clinical ring to it, which is not my intention;
I have not, however, found a more suitable word.

The relationship

Intervention in practice teaching is based on the view that the student

teacher can be helped to teach more effectively through the input and
perceptions of the teacher educator. There is a basic assumption that
one person can teach another to teach; otherwise student teachers would
simply be left to figure it out on their own. This contrasts with the “self-
help” view, according to which student teachers learn to describe, di-
agnose, and thus alter their own practice. In this view (Fanselow 1987b)
the educator supplies the system of description and trains the student
teachers in its use, but leaves the conclusions up to them. While these
two views need not be completely opposed, they do differ significantly
in their definition of the role of the educator.
Central to the interventionist view is the notion of what it means to
foster change in other people by helping them do or learn something.
Gibb, in a brief article titled “Is Help Helpful?”’, asserts:

Helping is a central social process... Help, however, is not always helpful.

The recipient... may not see it as useful. The offering may not lead to
greater satisfaction or to better performance. Even less often does the
helping process... lead to continuous growth on the part of the participants.
(1964: 25)

Gibb goes on to outline typical reactions that the recipient of the prof-
fered help may have, noting:
105
Donald Freeman

TABLE I. THE HELPING RELATIONSHIP

Orientations that help Orientations that hinder

1. Reciprocal trust (confidence, 1. Distrust (fear, punitiveness,
warmth, acceptance) defensiveness)
2. Cooperative learning (inquiry, 2. Teaching (training, giving advice,
exploration, quest) indoctrinating)
3. Mutual growth (becoming, 3. Evaluating (fixing, correcting,
actualizing, fulfilling) providing a remedy)
4. Reciprocal openness (spontaneity, 4. Strategy (planning for,
candor, honesty) maneuvering, manipulation)
5. Shared problem solving (defining 5. Modeling (demonstrating, giving
problems, producing alternative information, guiding)
solutions, testing)
6. Autonomy (freedom, 6. Coaching (molding, steering,
interdependence, equality) controlling)
7. Experimentation (play, 7. Patterning (standard, static,
innovation, provisional try) fixed)
Source: Gibb (1964: 25).

In certain cases the recipient... becomes more helpless and dependent, less
able to make his own decisions and initiate his own actions... less willing to
take risks, more concerned about propriety and conformity. We have also
seen... recipients become more creative, less dependent upon helpers, more
willing to risk decisions, ...less concerned about conformity, and more
effective at working independently and interdependently.

What then distinguishes the help that spawns independence from that
which tends to perpetuate dependence by the recipient? Gibb summa-
rizes, in Table 1, seven distinguishing characteristics. Taken at face value,
these characteristics suggest an educating process predicated almost en-
tirely on the needs of the student teacher; it is hard to envision how the
requirements of the content would fit. In Gibb’s view, the student teach-
ers would determine, in conjunction with the teacher educator, what
they needed to address or improve in their teaching; there would be little
place for the teacher educator to tell or show the student teachers what
they ought to do, even if that were necessary. What happens, for ex-
ample, if the student teacher is presenting misinformation about the
language? Prescriptions based on the educator’s perceptions in the prac-
tice teaching or on an understanding of teaching could, in this view,
create dependence and resentment in the student teacher.
The problem is, however, that teaching does include aspects that are
unequivocal. If the student teacher presents inaccurate information about
the language, for example, the teacher educator will most likely feel the
need to correct it. Teaching also includes aspects that are commonly

106
 Intervening in practice teaching
agreed upon, although not necessarily absolute. If, for example, the
student teacher consistently ridicules students’ contributions while si-
multaneously encouraging their active participation in the lesson, it may
help to point out that such ridicule will most likely frustrate the students.
The danger comes in assuming that teaching is uniquely a matter of
objective principles about language and learning, and that all aspects
can — or should — be laid out by the teacher educator for the student
teacher. Such a doctrinaire approach can lead to formulaic teaching and
to prescriptive intervention by the educator in everything the student
teacher does. Idiosyncratic aspects of the student’s teaching are stymied
as the relationship becomes a matter of the student teacher replicating
the educator’s views and practices in the classroom.
This can become a form of “learned helplessness” (Abramson, Selig-
man, and Teasdale 1978), where the student teacher comes to depend
on the teacher educator’s standards and criteria in a “Did I do it right?”
relationship. Given the goal of fostering independent teachers who know
what they are doing and why, such a relationship is not productive.
There may be instances, depending on the aspects of teaching to be
taught and the level of the student teachers’ previous experience, where
such intervention is temporarily appropriate. For instance, Copeland
(1980) reports a preference among a group of beginning teachers in
preservice training for directive supervision.
The intervention creates a relationship that links the student teacher,
the teacher educator, and the content through a specific process. But the
form of intervention must vary according to what the student teacher
needs to learn. Each intervention must integrate content (i.e., what aspect
of teaching is to be taught) and process (i.e., how that content is pre-
sented). The following three synopses each describe a form of interven-
tion designed to achieve a particular purpose in the learning of teaching.

The directive option

In the directive form of intervention, adapted from “‘the supervisory
approach” (Freeman 1982), the teacher educator comments on the stu-
dent teacher’s teaching, making concrete proposals for change. The ed-
ucator establishes the purpose of the intervention, determines the points
to be raised with the student teacher based on the observation, and
makes a brief statement on each point to which the student teacher may
or may not respond. Discussion often ensues from the intervention, but
the roles are very clear: The teacher educator “directs” and the student
teacher “does.”
For example, after observing a vocabulary lesson in which the teacher
has modeled new vocabulary from a picture, the teacher educator may
feel the student teacher needs to use the students’ prior knowledge in
107
Donald Freeman

structuring the lesson. Having established this as the purpose of the

intervention, the educator may propose that the student teacher elicit
known vocabulary from the students before introducing new items, in
order to see what they already know. A discussion may follow on what
to do with the elicited vocabulary, during which the educator may make
suggestions or give further direction.
The purpose of directive intervention is to improve the student teach-
er’s performance according to educator’s criteria. This form of inter-
vention rests explicitly on the teacher educator’s view of what constitutes
good and effective teaching (Freeman 1983; Gebhard, this volume,
Chapter 10), which is to some extent inherent in all supervision. It is
the student teacher’s job to implement the changes proposed by the
educator to achieve that end.
In one sense, this directive process is the most common form of in-
tervention to teach teaching. It seems to grow out of that almost natural
urge to tell another person how to do something. Whether it is effective
or not depends in large measure on the content of the intervention.
Telling the student teacher how to elicit known vocabulary deals with
a technical skill in teaching. It is something that one can tell anoth-
er how to do and allows for concrete evaluation. There are other posi-
tive effects: It may lead to attitudinal changes in the students, who may
come to feel more engaged in the lesson, and it may help student teach-
ers to realize that students bring a lot of knowledge to the learning
situation.
Consider, however, if directive intervention were used explicitly to
redirect the student teacher’s attitude. The educator might have observed
impatience and a lack of tolerance on the student teacher’s part, and
may have intervened by saying, “I'd like you to be a little more patient
with your students.” In this instance, the directive process does not suit
its content, the issue of attitude. By invoking subjective criteria for pa-
tience, the educator has not framed the content of the intervention in a
concrete or accessible manner. The student teacher is being asked to
change personality traits rather than actions.
This does not imply that complex and subjective aspects of teaching,
such as attitude, cannot be addressed through this form of intervention.
However, it is incumbent on the educator to present them in accessible
ways so that the student teacher knows exactly what to do. In this case,
the educator might say, “I noticed that you seemed to cut students off
as they were answering. I’d like you to try this: When you feel you need
to come in, count to five silently before you do so.” Although this
interventiomis directive, it is concrete; it leaves the student teacher know-
ing precisely what steps to take. However, it may be harder to assess
whether that external change leads to the internal shift in attitude sought
by the educator. Thus, while it is possible to address such aspects of
108
 Intervening in practice teaching
teaching through this form of intervention, other forms may be more
effective.

The alternatives option

Another intervention involves the use of alternatives. The educator
chooses a point from the practice teaching and raises it with the student
teacher. The educator then proposes a limited number of alternative
ways to handle that point in the lesson. The student teacher rejects or
selects from among the alternatives. Discussion follows about the student
teacher’s criteria for the choices he or she has made.
The purpose of this intervention is to develop the student teacher’s
awareness of the choices involved in deciding what and how to teach
and, more importantly, to develop the ability to establish and articulate
the criteria that inform those decisions. Thus the student teacher’s actual
choice of alternatives is less important than the reason for choosing the
alternative. The educator limits the number of alternatives so that they
can be easily remembered and discussed. Having only two alternatives
implies a right or wrong answer, so three or four are preferable. Likewise
the alternatives need to be sufficiently distinct that each provokes dis-
cussion, yet must not be so absurd as to be easily dismissed.
The educator avoids showing a preference for any of the alternatives.
If the purpose is to direct a specific change in the student teacher’s
classroom practice, then the whole exchange can easily become loaded
and potentially manipulative. In such a case, it is preferable to address
what needs to be changed through directive intervention, so that both
parties know where they stand.
Because the alternative options form is based on the student teacher’s
activity and not on the educator’s criteria for how to improve that
activity, it lends itself to addressing the less technical aspects of teaching.
To return to the attitudinal example cited earlier, with this option the
educator might say:
“I noticed that you seemed to interrupt as students were answering; one
thing you could do would be to set a time limit for the student to answer —
you could even bring an egg timer; another thing would be to ask the same
question to three students at the same time and let the fastest one answer; or
you could ask other students to help the student having problems...”
The student teacher’s response to each alternative is the heart of the
intervention. In the responses, and in the subsequent querying by the
educator (Ed), criteria for the student teacher’s (ST) actions and decisions
begin to emerge:
ST: I don’t like the timer idea...
Ed: Why not?
109
Donald Freeman

ST: Well, for one thing, it puts too much pressure on the student. And
for another, it’s pretty hokey.
Ed: What about the other alternatives?
ST: The second one might help a bit; I’m not sure. The reason I usually
cut a student off is because he’s taking so long to answer that I’m
afraid the others will get bored.
Ed: So how would this help?
ST: It would give the others something to do...
Ed: Wouldn’t the third alternative do the same thing, asking the ques-
tion to three people at the same time?
ST: Yeah, but that would create a lot of competition in the class.
Ed: Why don’t you want to have competition? ...
In this discussion, the student teacher has begun to articulate the issue:
that of keeping the whole class engaged while one student is answering.
At the same time, the student teacher is establishing a criterion for
teaching: to avoid creating pressure or competition in the classroom.
The educator has played the role of devil’s advocate, provoking the
student teacher through specific alternatives to begin examining the rea-
sons for what he or she is doing.
The intervention could proceed in a variety of ways while preserving
the same focus (i.e., what the student teacher did in interrupting students)
and the same purpose (i.e., having the student teacher clarify the rea-
soning behind that decision). For instance, after the discussion might
continue thus:
ST: I don’t like any of those alternatives.
Ed: Why not?
ST: Because they’re all pretty artificial...
Ed: How are they artificial?
ST: Oh come on! Using an egg timer...Or turning the class into a
shouting match over who gets the answer first.
Ed: Why is that bad?
ST: Well because...
Thus the discussion turns to the student teacher’s reasons. The student
teacher might also try, consciously or not, to avoid choosing an alter-
native. Or there could be an attempt at role reversal in which the student
teacher would try to draw the educator into stating a preference by
asking for directions
ST: Which one would you do?
Ed: I’m not sure. It would depend on what I was after.
ST: I don’t understand.
Ed: Well, I might use the timer if I wanted to inject some pressure into
the process.

110
 Intervening in practice teaching

ST: Pressure wouldn’t work too well with my students — they’d all freeze
up.
Ed: Have you tried it?
ST: Yeah, when we played a game last week...
It is worth noting here that while moving temporarily out of the querying
role, the educator was able to work toward the same purpose of having
the student teacher identify reasons for the actions he or she took.
At the core of this form of intervention is self-discipline on the part
of the educator. He or she needs to resist the temptation to become what
Curran (1976) refers to as an “‘answer person,” supplying solutions to
problems or expounding reasons for classroom decisions. Such a stance
is out of place in addressing the student teacher’s reasoning process and
can become counterproductive by creating a dependency, albeit tem-
porary, of the student teacher on the educator. Such power may be
seductive for the educator, but it does not lead to independent thought
and action on the part of the student teacher.
Thus if the educator intends to address aspects of technical practice
observed in teaching, he or she can do so through directive intervention.
If, however, the educator wants to address complex issues of pedagogical
reasoning, he or she needs to use a process of intervention in which the
student teacher takes on more responsibility. The alternatives option
offers a structure for that shift in that the intervention remains focused
on specific aspects of the practice teaching, while delving into the ped-
agogical reasoning and decisions on which that teaching is based.
The educator retains control, however, by directing the student teacher
to specific issues in order to facilitate development of certain criteria.
Thus this form of intervention does not afford the student teacher com-
plete jurisdiction over what he or she does. It does not achieve the fullness
of the helping relationship described by Gibb, which brings us to a third
form of intervention.

The nondirective option

In On Becoming a Person, Carl Rogers makes the statement in regard
to psychotherapy that “no approach which relies on knowledge, upon
training, upon the acceptance of something which is taught, is of any
use in changing a person” (1961: 32). Rogers goes on to outline a process
that he refers to as client-centered therapy (see also Rogers 1951),
through which the client discovers or comes to recognize the meaning
and rationale of his or her own behavior. Curran, a student of Rogers,
describes this as the capacity for “self-agency” (1978): arriving at the
solutions that one can find only for oneself.
What is crucial, then, in this form of interaction is how to structure
111
Donald Freeman

the role of the other, be it Rogers’s therapist or Curran’s language

teacher. To cast the issue in the terms used here: What form of inter-
vention can preserve the student teacher’s capacity for “self-agency” and
at the same time give the educator a productive role in the process? The
critical element lies in the relationship of the student teacher and the
educator, which must:

1. allow the student teacher to sort through the practice teaching ex-
perience without interference or direction from the educator, to find
individual solutions; and
2. allow the educator to participate in this process and to contribute
from knowledge and experience without directing the student teacher
to specific conclusions or courses of action.

The purpose of this intervention (called a nondirective approach in Free-

man 1982), then, is to provide the student teacher with a forum to clarify
perceptions of what he or she is doing in teaching and for the educator
to fully understand, although not necessarily to accept or agree with,
those perceptions. Further, it allows the student teacher to identify a
course of action based on his or her own perceptions and what the
educator offers, and to decide whether and how to act. The balance to
be struck is between “understanding” (with the educator recognizing
the student teacher’s ‘“‘world’’) and ‘“‘standing” (with the educator
“standing” in relation to what he or she has understood) (Curran 1976,
1978).
Stevick (1980: 106) describes this process of “‘understanding” as
“hold{ing] back from asking questions, telling about [one’s] own ex-
perience, and from making suggestions.” It is, Stevick acknowledges, an
“unnatural” way of interacting, but the understander does so because
of “faith in the other person’s ability to come up with what he needs.
Questions, suggestions, or the understander’s own experiences,”’ Stevick
continues, “would only lay on... expectations and pull [the other per-
son] into the understander’s world.”
How does this nondirective intervention work in practice? Returning
to the student teacher who cut students off, the educator using a non-
directive intervention might initiate the discussion with this observation:
“I noticed that at times students didn’t get to complete their answers to
your questions — that sometimes you moved on without having them
finish their responses.” The discussion might continue:

ST: Huh, I didn’t think I did that. I always waited... Well, actually
with Juan I did kind of cut him off because he takes forever to get
anything out.
Ed: You got kind of impatient waiting...
112
 Intervening in practice teaching
ST: Not impatient, no...so much as worried that other students were
getting bored. I figure if it bugs me, it must get to them. I mean,
they have to be with him all day long. But I suppose they could be
used to it by now.
Ed: So it’s hard to know what effect Juan is having on the others, but
it gets to you.
ST: Yeah, sometimes; it depends on how I am. Maybe today I was more
nervous because you were there and I wasn’t sure we were going
to get to the last activity which I really wanted you to see...
Ed: You mean to the role play?
ST: Yeah, I wanted to get through that...
Ed: Sounds like you were invested in that activity and maybe your mind
was ahead on it, and Juan seemed to be slowing things down.
ST: I guess I kind of felt that way...
This stage might continue, or it might wind down as the student teacher
identifies some of the things that went on in the lesson and why. The
educator signals involvement and “understanding” of what the student
teacher is saying by responding with summarizing comments. When it
seems appropriate, the educator “‘stands”’ to contribute from his or her
experience and perceptions, yet does not propose solutions or direct
courses of action. That choice remains up to the student teacher. It is
worth noting the explicitness of the transition: It is almost like putting
in the clutch before shifting gears in an automobile.
Ed: You know this situation we’ve been talking about — the tension
between what is going on at the moment versus what you have
planned. A couple of thoughts come to mind...I am really aware
of it in the morning when I’m getting my kids ready for nursery
school and the little one wants to tie her own shoes, and all I can
think about is what I have to do. I find it helps if I can see it from
her point of view — that she really wants to do it herself. Seeing it
that way doesn’t make my issue go away, but it helps to balance
things and can release some of the pressure | feel. Sometimes, too,
I just put her in the car and let her tie her shoes as we drive.

In “standing,” the educator is careful not to choose an example from

the language classroom or even from teaching. Rather, to reinforce a
neutral stance vis-a-vis the student teacher’s experience, the educator
selects an example from another realm, yet one that captures the essential
issue in the teaching situation in the student teacher’s view. This allows
the student teacher to make whatever connections he or she chooses, to
pursue the point or to drop it — in short, to “come up with what he
needs.”
This form of intervention addresses the full complexity of teaching.
113
Donald Freeman

While it may start from a focus initiated by the educator, the course it
takes is determined for the most part by the student teacher and by their
interaction. The student teacher works from an individual view of teach-
ing, to articulate that view with reference to the practice teaching seg-
ment, to address the problems in it, and to discover independent
solutions. The role of the educator is to support, yet not direct, in that
process. While the educator draws on the wealth of personal experience
and understanding of teaching, he or she is careful to keep the perspective
that it is the student teacher who is learning to teach. Thus on the surface,
this nondirective form of intervention comes closest to Gibb’s criteria
for effective and helpful help.

Intervention: from training to development

Teaching someone something as complex and multifaceted as language

teaching cannot be limited to one form of relationship between the
educator and the student teacher; it requires, in a sense, a true harmony
of ends and means. The content itself — language teaching — requires
examination of its parts: specific skills and aspects of knowledge. One
must likewise consider the whole: What is effective language teaching?
Most importantly, one has to examine the reasoning and decision making
that bind the parts and the whole together in the activity of teaching a
particular lesson (Freeman 1989).
Access to the content may be achieved in different ways. The student
teachers can be “told” the parts, but each person must arrive at the
whole independently in order for it to be meaningful. Each student
teacher must come to realize that the connections between the parts and
the whole depend on individual reasoning, the clarity of which allows
one to adjust the parts so that they fit more effectively into one’s view
of the whole.
To intervene in this process the teacher educator must place what the
student teacher is doing in practice teaching within his or her view of
the whole of teaching. This view can come from two sources: in the
directive or alternatives options, it comes from the educator’s view of
effective teaching; in the nondirective option, it represents a melding of
the student teacher’s and the educator’s views. The teacher educator
then intervenes to create change in the student teacher’s reasoning or
decision-making process. The change may be finite and immediately
assessable — that is, trainable — as in the directive option, or it may be
internal and open-ended — that is, developmental — as with the other
two options.
Table 2 summarizes the interrelation between the options, viewed
along a continuum from training to development. It describes the central

114
 ,SuIpUuris,,
sasuodsal

UeIIND
(9261
99s)
(7861 UeUseI4 °9/6] UeIIND 298) (7861 (0861 4P1Ae35
,sunueyd poas,, ,.“suripueissispun,, UBUIIIIJ 99S) SUOTINTOS 39S) UN] puodas-¢]
.(sunsenb,, ‘uruonsenb pepus-uadO agqissod saneuloiy ® YIM SyUoUIAIeIs Jollg sanbruyse |,
drysuoneyas agjqissod Asayseu Jo uonde JO sasinod syIDEds
,suipuejsiapun,,/,3unsenb,, —Ajataea fao10yo ev ZunesNyI ysnosy) Arlajseul yeas asuodsa
® UO paseq ‘UOISsNdsIP popua-uadO SIANCUIOIE I[GISsog ued 3ey) sjuIOd 939I9SIq $,JaAIISqO JO $}U9]U0D
Ayisoyne ‘Ja}UaWIe[duut ‘IasooypD SI SIAVUIOIE JO JasOOYD
Jayoesy §,Joqueyd peas,, ‘aanoodsiad SI Jaydea} 5,938 0Ape Jaquawie[duit st Jayoeay drysuoneyes
apisino ,“JapurisiopunN,, st JIAJIsqO S.JIAQP,, ‘[IOJ SI J9AJISqC SAWIOYING SI JBAIISGG —s-_ YD ¥IJ—IOAIOSGO :39UEIS
<«@OP | Se yori | Op AYM,,
ee@ YORI | YM Yovs | OP AYA, uP Me
gc Op MOH, c¢ YOU) | OP TEUM, enSsi eae)
uoudo aaij2a41puoN uoudo saayvusayy uo1do aa1j2a41q
winnulqUo? Juamdojanap <—————— Suiutv1],
SYAHOVAL ONILVONGA YOA TAGOW V :-LNAWdOTSAAG/ONINIVUL *@ ATAVL
Donald Freeman

issues each addresses and the relationship, content, and principal tech-
niques of each intervention.

Concluding thoughts
The purpose of intervention is change: change that moves the student
teacher toward, or in relation to, a view of the whole of language teach-
ing. When the educator intervenes “to help the student teacher do a
better job,” better implies a view of “good” versus “bad” teaching
(Freeman 1983; Gebhard, this volume, Chapter 10). As Gibb observed,
certain forms of change tend to perpetuate the student teacher’s de-
pendence on the educator’s view of teaching, because assessment is based
on the latter. Other forms point toward increasing interdependence and
a shared assessment of change. In any case, change implies a view of
language teaching on which the change is based and toward which it
moves.
Thus the issue is not who intervenes with whom. Although the rela-
tionship between educator and student teacher may generate friction, it
would be a mistake to assume that by removing one of the protagonists
the intervention becomes more objective and thus less problematical.
No intervention is value-free. Even when one intervenes through reflec-
tion or self-observation to change one’s own teaching, one does so based
on what one sees as “good”’ teaching.
Descriptive systems such as FOCUS (Fanselow 1987a), COLT (Allen,
Frohlich, and Spada 1984), or TALOS (Ullman and Geva 1982) or
indeed clinical supervision (Cogan 1973; Acheson and Gall 1980) are
based on the assumption that by seeing what is happening in the class-
room, the student teacher can control and alter it. (See also this volume,
p. 19, for more information on such systems.) In each system, the cat-
egories of that perception represent a defined view of teaching, which
values certain aspects while downplaying others. Further, when self-
applied, the systems are only as useful or accurate as the perceptiveness
of the person who applies them (see Gebhard, Chapter 8). As with any
inclusive system, the changes the student teacher makes through it are
describable only within it. Otherwise the change is either not significant
or calls into question the comprehensiveness of that system.
Therefore the student teacher—teacher educator relationship must not
be seen as something to be systematically controlled or eliminated; rather
it is the key that must be exploited. Two perceptions create a dialogue.
The student teacher and the educator talk about teaching using the
practice teaching segment as an immediate source of reference and vo-
cabulary for their discussions. In this dialogue, their roles are different.
The educator’s job is to help the student teacher move toward an un-

116
 Intervening in practice teaching
derstanding of effective teaching and independence in teaching. While
the educator’s knowledge and experience aid in defining the former, they
can interfere with the student teacher achieving the latter.
The final arbiter in the dialogue must thus be the student teacher:
how the particular intervention affects how he or she teaches. The effects
are not always immediately evident, however. The teacher educator
needs the capacity to see beyond what was intended through the inter-
vention to what actually happened. This is, after all, a learning process,
and as such it depends on what is happening within and for the learner.

117
8 Interaction in a teaching practicum
Jerry G. Gebhard

This chapter presents a study of a preservice master of arts teacher

education practicum for inexperienced English as a second language
(ESL) student teachers. The seven student teachers in this practicum
were required to teach in an ESL program set up by the department for
people in New York City who want to study ESL (beginning through
advanced) at a very low cost.
One purpose of this chapter is to describe how the interaction in this
practicum provided opportunities for student teachers to change their
teaching behavior. The initial research questions included:
1. Are there changes in the teaching behavior of student teachers while
they are participating in a practicum for inexperienced ESL teachers?
2. If there are changes in teaching behavior, what opportunities are
made available through the interaction that can possibly account for
these changes?
3. If there are no apparent changes, how does the interaction seem to
block student teachers from change?
In economy of space, the focus here is on questions 1 and 2: in other
words, on the kinds of interaction that seem to provide opportunity for
change to occur. How interaction seems to block student teachers from
change is of equal importance (see Gebhard 1985 for a description of
how interaction set up opportunities for as well as blocked June, a
student teacher in the practicum described in this chapter, from changing
her teaching behavior).
It is important to realize that the focus of this research was not on
the student teachers, as in a case study approach, but on the patterns
of interaction between the participants in the practicum (student teach-
ers, teacher educator, ESL students). It is by focusing on the interaction
between people, and not on the people themselves, that insight can be
gained into how opportunities are provided (or blocked) for student
teachers to change their teaching behaviors.
A second purpose of this chapter is to show how researchers in the
field of teacher education can break away from skills-based views of
teaching so as to gain fresh insight into the professional development
of teachers. As Lanier and Little (1986) point out, researchers in
teacher education have widely accepted the conclusions of research-
118
 Interaction in a teaching practicum

ers, such as Berliner, Brophy, Gage, and Good, on teaching effective-

ness, and, as Zumwalt (1982) clearly points out, teacher educators
have taken research findings on effective teaching and directly trans-
lated them into skills to be mastered by student teachers in their
teacher education programs. In turn, researchers have focused on
whether or not student teachers in teacher education programs can
master these teaching skills.
Although this line of research informs teacher educators about the
effects of skills training on teachers, as Joyce and Showers (1981) and
Peck and Tucker (1973) make clear, it does not, as Zimpher and Ashburn
(1985: 16) point out, “contribute to our knowledge of the professional
development of teachers.” Such studies, in other words, do not allow
teacher educators to understand the experiences teacher educators and
student teachers go through together in their programs and the conse-
quences these experiences have on the student teachers’ development as
teachers during and after the programs. This chapter is designed to
further knowledge about the developmental change process through
focus on the interaction between participants, a focus that is greatly
needed.

Procedures

In the behavioral sciences, we have been slow to absorb that every problem
worthy of extended intellectual effort demands a special set of methods. A
new problem cannot be assumed to be resonant to a research design guided
by a paradigm developed for research on a previous problem. (Birdwhistell,
cited in McDermott 1980: 2)
In agreement with this view, the procedures I used were designed es-
pecially for this study.
Data were collected through participant observation. I accomplished
this by joining the practicum as a student teacher and interacting with
the other seven student teachers in completing the course requirements:
team teaching an ESL class three mornings per week for twelve weeks,
attending weekly three-hour seminars, being supervised, and doing as-
signed readings, investigative projects on teaching, and observation
tasks, among other activities.
Acting as a participant-observer was modeled after a method that
some ethnographers use to gain access to cultural behavior. For example,
Philips (1982) enrolled in law school in order to understand how law
students acquire the language of lawyers. K. M. Bailey (1980) joined a
French class in order to study what it means to be a foreign language
student.
The research process included gaining the trust of the other prac-
119
Jerry G. Gebhard

ticum participants. Central to this process was this insight by

Berreman:
Every ethnographer when he reaches the field is faced immediately with
accounting for himself before the people he proposes to learn to know. Only
when this has been accomplished can he proceed to his task of seeking to
understand the way of life of those people. (1962: 5)

Thus, the participants in the practicum were informed as to the purpose

of the research and that the findings were not to be used to evaluate
them as individuals, but rather to describe the activities and interactions
among them. More importantly, my aim was to consistently behave in
ways that reflected this statement by not judging them or their teaching,
thus allowing trust to grow between the practicum participants and
myself.
As trust grew it was possible to audiotape their classroom teaching,
seminar meetings, informal discussions over coffee, and other activities,
thus providing what Mehan (1979) calls a “retrievable data base”
through which ongoing and later analysis could be done. Trust also
afforded access to student teachers’ lesson plans, journal notes on their
classroom teaching — including stated problems and insights — and writ-
ten feedback from the teacher educator.
Analysis was done on an ongoing basis, and focused on making
sense out of journal notes on observations and discussions, as well as
the audio recordings and corresponding transcripts. One analytical
focus was on the changes student teachers made in their teaching be-
havior. This analysis was made easier through the use of Fanselow’s
(1977a, 1987b) FOCUS (Foci on Communication Used in Settings),
an observational category system designed to describe the multiple as-
pects of communication. Analysis of the kinds of activities and inter-
action within them was likewise done through studying research
journal notes, tape recordings, and transcripts. Finally, an analysis
was done of the changes in teaching behavior in relation to the inter-
action in the practicum. The aim was to discover patterns of interac-
tion that provided opportunities for student teachers to change the
way they teach.
In doing this analysis, discussions with Ray McDermott and John
Fanselow, my consultants, and reading the work of ethnographers, such
as Frake (1980); ethnomethodologists, such as Garfinkel (1967) and
Wieder (1974); conversational analysts in Atkinson and Heritage (1986)
and Schenkein (1978); and interaction analysts, such as McDermott and
Roth (1978), McDermott, Gospodinoff, and Aron (1978), and Scheflen
(1973), proved valuable. They offer an important insight: that inter-
action determines how people behave. To better understand how this

120
 Interaction in a teaching practicum

happens, the focus of inquiry needs to be on the interaction going on

between participants in a social event.

Findings

Changes in teaching behavior

There is strong evidence that five of the seven student teachers changed
aspects of their teaching behavior while participating in the sixteen-week
practicum. Table 1 outlines four areas in which teaching behavior
changed. Although some student teachers seemed to change more dra-
matically than others, the changes in Table 1 are common to the five
student teachers.
As Table 1 shows, student teachers began their practicum teaching
through teacher lecture and questioning. The pattern of interaction be-
tween the teacher and students was much like the pattern described in
Bellack et al. (1966) and Hoetker and Ahlbrand (1972). The student
teacher structured the lesson, solicited responses from students, and
reacted to these responses. Although some teacher lecture and ques-
tioning continued, by the second half of the practicum the student teach-
ers, to various degrees, were setting up and carrying out their activities
in a variety of ways. They were having students do group problem-
solving tasks, group discussions, pair work, and individual seat work.
In addition, the patterns of interaction subsequently changed. Students
solicited information from the student teacher and from each other, and
reacted to each others’ ideas.
The use of classroom space also changed. The student teachers began
by using very little of the available space. Students sat in rows and the
teacher stood in the front of the classroom. Some student teachers had
students write on the blackboard, but for the most part students did not
move around much. During the second half of the practicum student
seating changed to serve the activity (e.g., back-to-back while practicing
telephone conversations, in small-group circles, in whole-class semicir-
cles, or standing up and walking around the classroom). At least two
student teachers had students spaced around the room, while doing silent
reading. At least one student teacher expanded the class to the hallway.
Another student teacher made use of a kitchen located in the building
by having students teach each other how to prepare foods native to their
countries. Likewise, the student teacher in at least two classrooms taught
from the back of the room, and another student teacher left the room
completely while students carried on an activity.
Student teachers also expanded the content of their teaching. At the

121
 FIAVL
“I SADNVHD
NI ONIHOVAL YOIAVHAD
JO LNAGN.LS SYHHOVAL
e
se eee
a a ee ee a a OOOO ——S
Suigovay,
vadw 4o1aDYyag
JY J4v1S{Oo wngyov4d s0o1apyagSuisnp puoras {vyfo wnoy9044
ee ee ee a ee a a a ee ee SS
3umas
dn pue ATWeUILIg _prsojuas-Joyoeay
94NI9a]
JO Jayoea} ssepo-aJouUOISSNISIP Aysou!) *(paydasIp-r
-[[BWs
ayo
Sutkiseo
ano uOSs2] SutuoNsonb Jayoea})41d1[0s juapnis ‘asuodsas dnosZ suorssnosipnNoYyIUM) £(Jayoea}
sted yom
JaYyoeRa} *(39BaI “Surmatasajut
suonsung
) jo asensur] *(sn0eI1d [enpra
Jeas YIOM UTIs) “SUIpeas BunIIM *(sysei pesaj
91N399]
ssa] arOUL) JUepnys s}dI[os puke ‘(suonovar
IS/)JO WOOISSE]D
aoeds sJUpNIS
JIS UT ‘sMoOI JoYyDeaI spueIs
UI ‘JUOJJ UONeZIULSI
Jo sreYO
OIY “Ydeq-03-¥9
*(SaposId
eq)asn JO
sUIOS juawaSuRIIe
Jo sireyd0juI ‘sdnoid ‘sajqey sjuapnyspueis
Je pivoqgyse]q
pue xem punoye
‘Wool Jayoea} saaour punore Sul003 asn jo aoeds apisino
WooIsseyO ‘AeMyey) ‘(uayoury
UOTDSIII¢
JO jUZJUOD ATIeWIIg
e sndoj
uo ay Apnis
yo asensur] JUIOS Apnys
Jo asensue] ‘sonuUoS ,,rfl]-[B9J,,WUIUOS
Fjasq “3°3) “Arepnqedoa‘rewmues3 “3-2) Suryye? anoge Ajruey paseq
uo soioyd sjuspnjs
f(UONeIOUNUO
aUIOS snd0j
Id UO suonounj 3ulIq
(ur pue 2y) Apnis,,
Jo Jay30 _ssury)3:3) 8unind
“surse13e) ‘suononpout
Buryse
Joy Jay1930}
e mesBil ‘9]zznd Sunt
& Jeaq,, Aqqy
. ‘Toney
‘UoneUIOFUI
(39 Surzeys ‘sadioas Surysyem
Be ‘(wy
TL, JUDUIIeII
JO <Suapnis
ON YUOUTIeII]
JO JUIUNIeIIpo]
0} OM] auio0sg uoneidepe
0} [PUTSIIOJOIIO JUIUNLII *Sa1891eI
asensue|sIO1J9 dIseq :sor8ajems
([) Iwadas aouaIuas
yim [euonippe saiSaiens :pasn Burddoys juapnis
ye qurod
jo
UOI99I109
SuIsn sneyduta
ssaxjs
ye jutod
jo 1030 pue Bulop ‘][Ip-1urw
BuTT[aI JUSPNyS
0} TIM UMOP
fU0TI99II09
(7) aM UOTD9II09
UO preogpue Joq9 pue {u0ND0II09
SurAey sjUspnis yIOMul sdno3
01
*91N399] 1991109
ISI] JO saouaquas
YIM ‘sJOIIa ZurAvy sJUapNys9423
awioy Jay} UMO s2dU9}Uas
YIIM sJOIJapure ZuIpuy
ino
Jy) "SUOI99IIO9
ae ee! ee ee ee eee ee oe ee eeee ee aa
2a Se
 Interaction in a teaching practicum

start of the practicum, the lessons focused for the most part on language
itself: vocabulary items, grammar, and pronunciation. Some lessons be-
gan with the intent to teach a point of grammar or a list of vocabulary.
Other lessons began with a “real-life” topic, such as ““My favorite foods,”
and after a brief time on this topic, turned to the study of relevant
vocabulary (e.g., food) or to a point of grammar. For example, one
student teacher had students write down two lists, one on ‘“‘What I like
about New York City” and another on “What I don’t like about New
York City.” She had students copy their lists onto the board, after which
she went over the sentences, corrected them, and gave explanations about
grammar and punctuation.
However, at the start of the practicum at least two student teachers
had students work with the functions of language, such as “asking
for information,” “introducing oneself,” and “requesting a favor.”
Students first studied the language needed to express these functions
and then practiced the language with the student teacher or with each
other.
Although language itself remained the content of many lessons
throughout the practicum, at least four student teachers greatly ex-
panded their use of “real-life”? content without shifting most of the
lesson to grammar or some other technical aspect of language. For
example, students brought pictures into one class and spent the full
period talking about family members. In another class students read
“Dear Abby” and then wrote their own letters to Abby. In another
class students read about Halloween, and then gave short lectures on
Halloween and similar holidays in their native countries. In one class
students discussed news items about crime after reading short news-
paper articles.
Student teachers also changed the way they treated students’ language
errors. At the start of the practicum two student teachers did not treat
student errors at all. Instead they focused on the content of their lessons
(e.g., grammar or functions). The other student teachers did treat errors,
although their strategies seemed to be limited to two basic patterns (see
Table 1).
By the second half of the practicum all the student teachers were
treating student errors, and all but one seemed to have developed a
number of strategies for treating errors. Student teachers used a variety
of strategies, including (1) stopping the student at the point of error,
doing short drills, and then continuing with the lesson; (2) collecting
errors, writing the sentences with the errors on the board, and having
students either correct the sentences in groups or go to the board to
correct them; (3) collecting errors and designing exercises for future
classes; (4) writing the sentence with the error in it on a piece of paper,

123
Jerry G. Gebhard

along with the corrections; (5) approaching an individual student and

whispering the correction in his or her ear.

Opportunities for change

Student teachers seem to have opportunities to change their teaching
behavior when:
1. interaction is arranged so that student teachers can process aspects
of their teaching through multiple activities;
2. interaction affords student teachers chances to talk about their
teaching;
3. student teachers are given a break from their usual teaching setting
and a chance to teach in a new setting.

CHANGE THROUGH MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES

The practicum included many kinds of activities. Student teachers were

required to team-teach an ESL class, observe their own teaching (through
video and audio recordings) and other student teachers’ teaching
(through classroom visits, through an observation room, and through
video), do investigative projects of their own teaching behavior, read
about teaching, discuss teaching in a seminar and during supervisory
sessions, and write about teaching and observation experiences in a
journal. (See Gebhard 1986, and Gebhard, Gaitan, and Oprandy, this
volume, Chapter 2, for further discussion of change through multiple
activities.)
One finding is that multiple activities, as opposed to any single activity,
provided opportunities for student teachers to process and change their
teaching behavior. In order to illustrate how this happens, I will trace
the changes that June, one of the student teachers, made in her treatment
of student errors as a result of the activities in which she participated.
June was one of the student teachers who did not treat student errors
at the beginning of the practicum. She had stated to her teaching partner
(myself) that as a result of reading Dulay, Burt, and Krashen’s (1982)
book Language Two for another course, she believed that error treat-
ment does not help students master the second language and can even
interfere with their acquisition process.
However, June was required to observe her peers teaching, and they
were treating student errors. The topic of error treatment also came up
during supervision of her teaching: The teacher educator on a number
of occasions advised her to collect student errors and give students
feedback on their language errors. Likewise, June was required to read
an article on error treatment by Fanselow (1977b), which outlines dif-
ferent strategies for error treatment. The topic of error treatment also
124
 Interaction in a teaching practicum
came up in seminar meetings, including what kinds of errors can be
treated, how they can be treated, and when treatment is possible.
Thus, although June was not treating student errors in her class, she
had opportunities to consider error treatment. I believe that it is through
these multiple activities that June made a decision to treat student errors.
She started correcting errors toward the end of the first seven weeks of
the practicum, and by the end of the practicum she had developed several
strategies for treating student errors.
In summary, when student teachers teach a class they are con-
fronted with putting their knowledge into practice. They behave in
ways they believe are appropriate, and they often gain a sense of how
the lesson went. However, if an activity is available that allows them
to further consider their teaching experience, such as a discussion
with a supervisor who observed their lessons, they have the chance to
process their experience one step further, possibly even to the point
of making decisions about how they would teach the same lesson dif-
ferently next time. The more activities that are made available to the
student teachers, the more steps they can make toward an under-
standing of themselves as teachers and their teaching behaviors. For
example, if in addition to teaching a class and receiving verbal and
written feedback from a supervisor, student teachers have the chance
to observe their teaching on video, discuss the teaching experience
with peers, read about lessons or teaching behaviors similar to (or
different from) the ones they attempted to implement in their class-
rooms, or write about the experiences in a journal, the student teach-
ers will have far more opportunity to gain an understanding of
themselves as teachers, the consequences of their teaching behavior,
and changes they might make in their teaching.
Meredith (1984) makes clear that change is a consequence of dis-
covery and rediscovery through multiple experiences. He states that
each activity “may be a small and insignificant event in its own right,
and we probably overestimate the importance of any one event while
underestimating the importance of all of them taken together” (p.
48). For example, the reduction of smoking in America is not the re-
sult of any single event, but a consequence of the Surgeon General’s
report on smoking and lung cancer, magazine and newspaper articles,
news specials on TV, warning labels on cigarette packages, political
activism by nonsmokers, and more.

CHANGE AND CHANCES TO TALK ABOUT REAL

TEACHING ISSUES

Student teachers had many chances to talk about their teaching expe-
riences with each other and with the teacher educator through seminar
125
Jerry G. Gebhard

meetings, supervisory conferences, observation-room discussions, and

journal correspondence. Discussions also took place over the phone, in
the cafeteria, at the local pizza shop, or simply in the hallway. A major
outcome of this investigation is that such discussions did not occur in
a vacuum — that very specific behaviors were used to provide student
teachers with the opportunities to talk about teaching.
Such settings were important because they provided opportunities for
student teachers to discuss their classroom observations and teaching
experiences, allowing them to work through real teaching problems and
issues. Talk also afforded student teachers chances to raise “cognitive
questions” (Smith 1975; Curran 1978) — questions the student teachers
did not know they had until they had the opportunity to ask them.
Student teachers also gained new insights through the responses they
got to their questions. When these responses were in the form of alter-
native ways to teach, the student teachers were also given the means
through which to make decisions about how to change their teaching
behavior.
For an illustration of how opportunities for student teachers to talk
about teaching helped them to work through their individual teaching
issues or problems, raise questions, learn about teaching possibilities,
and ultimately to change their teaching behavior, let us return to the
developmental change process June went through in her approach to
error treatment. As discussed earlier, June did not treat student errors
during the first part of her teaching experience. However, her peers were
treating errors, and they would talk about the problems they were having
and possible ways to treat student errors. During these discussions June
had the opportunity to listen to what others said about error treatment
and at the same time to consider her own beliefs and raise questions
about whether or not to treat student errors. Evidence that she did this
is found in the questions she raised during two seminar meetings. During
one seminar she asked, “‘Shall I correct students now or not?” and “Error
correction is really like cutting off communication, isn’t it?”’ In another
seminar she asked, “Isn’t error correction really like changing the
subject?”
June received several responses to her questions, all dealing with how
to treat errors without cutting off communication. One student teacher
suggested she collect sentences with errors in them as the students work
in small groups, later write them on the board, and have students correct
them. Another student teacher suggested she tape-record the class, go
home and listen to the students’ use of language, and design a lesson
based on common errors. The teacher educator suggested that she write
down sentences with errors on pieces of paper and give them to indi-
vidual students to correct for homework.
As a possible consequence of these and other interactions June worked

126
 Interaction in a teaching practicum
through the issue of whether or not to treat student errors, and at some
point she made a decision to treat errors. Likewise, the questions she
raised about teaching changed, reflecting the changes she had made in
her approach to the treatment of student errors. Instead of asking ques-
tions related to whether or not to treat student errors, June began to
ask questions such as, ‘““How do you get students to care about the
corrections?” The teacher educator responded thus:
“A way to show a student that you care about her development in English is
to go up to her before class or after class and write down a correct way and
an incorrect way and say, ‘Which one is correct?’ Just to show that you
personally care about, you know, her development, that this is something
that you have been thinking of and you wanted to ask about again just to
make sure she is paying attention to it.”

The teacher educator’s clearly stated expectations helped maximize

the benefits that student teachers reaped from talking about teaching.
Student teachers were told at the beginning of the practicum and were
consistently reminded that they were expected to focus their discussion
on their teaching and that the point of the practicum was to provide
them with chances to explore their teaching behavior and its conse-
quences by trying out and analyzing alternative ways to teach.
In order to provide opportunities for student teachers to focus on their
own teaching behavior and its consequences (rather than on abstractions
about teaching), the teacher educator designed activities that directed
the student teachers’ attention to their own and each others’ teaching.
For example, student teachers were required to audio- and videotape
their classes, and these tapes were used as the focus for seminar (and
sometimes supervisory) discussion. Student teachers were also asked to
make short transcriptions of sections from these tapes at home or in the
seminar, and the student teachers practiced coding the interaction using
FOCUS (see the Appendix for an overview of FOCUS categories). Like-
wise, student teachers talked about their lesson plans, findings from
observations of other classes, and their investigative projects of their
teaching on self-selected areas of interest (see Gebhard, Gaitan, and
Oprandy, this volume, Chapter 2, for a detailed discussion of these
activities).
Finally, the teacher educator’s behavior during interaction with the
student teachers constructed an atmosphere conducive to open talk
about teaching. The following scene illustrates how the teacher educator
(Mark) set up opportunities for student teachers to do most of the
talking. (Note: Each period inside a parenthesis stands for one second
of silence.)
June: I’m tired (..) Uhm, I’ve really enjoyed it. Very much fun.
Mark: Mm-hmm. (..)

127
Jerry G. Gebhard

June: Of course, you know, anxiety about the, you not knowing what
to do and (..)
Mark: Yeah.
June: And stuff like that.
Mark: So despite the initial anxiety, still you were (.)
June: Yeah. I really had fun. It was very — it was fun (...)
Brent: Taking the two classes, I’ve experienced both extremes. At the
end of the first class I was totally overcome with a sense of
despair, you know. It was almost crushing, you know. Help-
lessness. Uncertainty. Frustration. At the end of today’s class I
was walking on air.
Mark: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Brent: I have a feeling that, you know, the sense of elation that I walked
out with today is probably a little false, but it was satisfying.
Mark: Yeah, yeah. Nice to know that it wasn’t going to be all like it
was the first day. (..) Yeah. (...)
Anne: Yes. I wasn’t nervous or anything.
The teacher educator, Mark, constructed an atmosphere conducive to
talk. He did not judge the student teachers’ feelings about their expe-
riences. He did not, for example, tell the student teachers that one kind
of feeling is more valid than another. Rather, he paraphrased back to
them what he understood them to be saying and showed that he was
listening to them through his use of such language as ““Mm-hmm” and
“Yeah.” Furthermore, Mark did not interrupt them. Instead he used
silence as a way to provide (1) time for them to process their ideas and
feelings (as Rowe 1986 has also recommended) without the threat of
having to talk constantly, and (2) chances for them to talk when they
have something to say.

CHANGE THROUGH A BREAK FROM ESTABLISHED PATTERNS

One of the most striking observations was how teaching behavior dra-
matically changed after student teachers were given the chance to make
a complete break from one teaching context and to begin afresh in
another. For example, after six weeks of interaction with an advanced
class June was assigned to a low-intermediate class. Although she had
begun to treat student errors in the advanced class, after she changed
classes, she began treating errors much more frequently.
June’s change can be understood from at least two perspectives. First,
she was provided with a new context to work in, one in which she
believed the type of interaction with the students needed to be different
(e.g., more error treatment was needed for a low-intermediate class than
for an advanced class). Second, June was also set free from established
patterns of interaction between herself and the advanced class, which
128
 Interaction in a teaching practicum
included student expectations of her behaviors. For example, since June
did not treat students’ errors frequently in the advanced class, the ESL
students learned not to expect her to do so, and thus did not provide
chances for her to do so. However, since there were no such expectations
in the new low-intermediate class, June’s change to fairly frequent error
treatment was easier.

So what?

One purpose of my research was to describe the interaction in an ESL

teaching practicum in relation to how this interaction provided oppor-
tunities for student teachers to change their teaching behaviors. A second
purpose was to break away from an “effective teaching” model of re-
search and to explore the actual processes going on in a teaching prac-
ticum. So what? What have I discovered that can be useful to both
teacher educators and to researchers in teacher education?

Implications of this study for teacher educators

These findings show how interaction in a teaching practicum can be
arranged so that student teachers have opportunities to change their
teaching behavior. Teacher educators can arrange the teacher education
experience, at whatever level, so that (1) the student teachers are afforded
chances to process their teaching through multiple activities, (2) the
interaction affords them chances to talk about their teaching experiences
and plans, and (3) the student teachers are given a chance to break away
from one context in which they have been working and work in another.
Although these particular interactional arrangements seem to have a
powerful influence on the changes that five student teachers made in
their teaching, I am not presenting my findings at this point as prescrip-
tions for teacher educators to follow. Rather, | encourage teacher ed-
ucators to use the interactional arrangements presented in this chapter
as suggestions in their own exploration of ways to help student teachers
change their teaching, and in so doing, to help student teachers see
teaching differently.
A less obvious implication of the findings for teacher educators is that
the entire process of arranging interaction so that student teachers have
opportunities to change also addresses a much larger issue: how teacher
educators can empower student teachers to be able to make their own
decisions about what and how to teach, as Freire (1970) has advocated.
As Fanselow (1987b) and Jarvis (1972) point out, to assure that student
teachers are being prepared to enter the real world of teaching, teacher
educators need to shift responsibility for decision making to classroom
129
Jerry G. Gebhard
teachers. By providing student teachers with opportunities through the
interaction to change their teaching behaviors, teacher educators are also
providing student teachers with opportunities to raise their own ques-
tions and to make decisions (e.g., “Should I treat students’ errors?”
“How can I get students to pay attention to their errors and the
corrections?’’).

Implications of this study for researchers

If teacher educators believe that the purpose of research in teacher ed-
ucation is to understand the processes going on in teacher education
programs and how these processes affect the participants in the pro-
grams, they cannot deny the relevance of this study. In addition, if
researchers are interested in more than what is going on in teacher
education programs and want to focus on how participants in the pro-
grams arrange interaction to accomplish teacher education, the focus
needs to widen and include not only what participants are doing but
also how they are doing it. This means that the interaction between
people is of utmost importance. Within such an interactional focus ques-
tions include:
How does the interaction provide student-teachers with opportunities
to change? to make their own decisions? to solve teaching problems?
How does the interaction block student-teachers from change? from
making decisions? from solving teaching problems?
It is hoped that this chapter has provided some insights into those factors
that facilitate, and those that block, professional development and
change.

130
 Interaction in a teaching practicum

Appendix

FOCUS: FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNICATION

(Major Categories)

Move Message
What is being done? How is it being done?
Who or what What is the What mediums How are the What areas of
iscommunicatingto purpose of the are used to mediums used to take in content are
whom or what? communication? | communicate? or communicate content? communicated?

Source! Target Move Type Medium Use Content

structuring linguistic

teacher

characterize

soliciting nonlinguistic procedure

present

student

relate

responding paralinguistic

reproduce

reacting silence unspecified

Bold letters are abbreviations for the categories.

(From Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Alternatives by John F. Fanselow.

Copyright © 1987 by John F. Fanselow. Reprinted by permission of the publisher,
Longman Publishing Group.)

131
9 A professional development focus for
the language teaching practicum
Martha C. Pennington

Whether implicitly or explicitly, every teacher preparation program

embodies a philosophy of teaching that connects performance goals to
training methods and course content. In the ideal case, each program re-
quirement is covered by an explicit rationale that relates course content to
specific outcomes for program graduates. Sucha rationale incorporates (1)
an articulated philosophy or theory of teaching and (2) statements relating
that philosophy or theory to one or more specializations for which prepa-
ration is offered in the program. Accordingly, the question of how to pre-
pare language teachers resolves itself ultimately into the question of what
the nature of language teaching is. The answer to this question requires,
first, defining a general theory or philosophy of teaching and, second, de-
termining how this general theory relates to the particular case of teaching
a second language (Richards, this volume, Chapter 1).
This chapter provides background discussion and practical techniques
for the preparation of language teachers based on a philosophy of teach-
ing as profession. The discussion of professionalism is set in a context
of other views of teaching, and the notion of teaching as profession is
shown to provide a conceptual bridge between a context-free, empiricist
view of teaching and a more context-dependent, individualistic view. A
distinguishing characteristic of the notion of teaching as profession is
the centrality of career growth as an ongoing goal. This chapter explores
the implementation of this conception of professionalism in language
teacher preparation programs through a series of specific activities for
the practicum component.’

Implications of teaching philosophy for

teacher preparation

Different conceptions
of teaching have different implications for teacher
preparation. For some people, teaching is a kind of mystical experience
1 The activities.described in this chapter were designed for a prepracticum course taught
by the author from 1982 to 1985 at the University of California at Santa Barbara in
the TESL Certificate Program. Susan Jasper, an instructor in the TESL Certificate
Program of the University of California at Santa Barbara, provided valuable input in
the development of some of the exercises.

132
 A professional development focus
that is hard to explain or describe. Stevick (1980: 295), for example,
speaks of teaching as “the mystery-behind-mystery,” the “simple, daily
miracle.” From this perspective, individual acts of teaching are essentially
irreplicable and noncomparable, and the inherent characteristics of in-
dividual teachers are the strongest predictor of classroom outcomes.
Under this abstract view of teaching, in which the teaching act cannot
be analyzed and described in rational, consistent terms, teacher devel-
~ opment or evaluation cannot be justified:
From this perspective, teachers are born, spontaneously as it were, when they
stand in front of a class and begin to teach. Hence, the only relevant
experience for prospective teachers is actual teaching. (Pennington 1989: 9)

- Inaless radical conception, teaching viewed as a kind of “artistic’’ perfor-

mance depends in large measure on the characteristics of the particular
teacher and so cannot be reliably predicted from teacher preparation:
“Under the conception of teaching as art, teaching techniques and their ap-
plication may be novel, unconventional, or unpredictable” (Darling-
Hammond, Wise, and Pease 1983: 291). However, teacher preparation
can be of value for helping refine natural abilities and for synthesizing ele-
ments of the teaching “craft” into an individual teaching style.
In a research-oriented approach to language teaching, some educators
(e.g., Long 1980; Long and Crookes 1986) are attempting to provide an
empirical basis for teacher preparation, through extensive observation,
description, and analysis of teaching. According to this empiricist ap-
proach, individual acts of teaching represent patterned, systematic varia-
tion. Thus, it should be possible to discover on the basis of classroom
research a set of observable and replicable component skills of teaching
that can be learned and later evaluated in terms of specific behavioral ob-
jectives. An empiricist approach to teaching therefore leads to a search for
principles of effective instruction, and microskills directly related to these,
which all teachers can master. A more holistic approach (Larsen-Freeman
1983; Britten 1985a), on the other hand, leads teacher educators to assist
individuals in developing themselves to the fullest extent possible, so that
they may ultimately create their own reality, or teaching style. Such a high-
inference, macro approach to teacher preparation (Richards, this volume,
Chapter 1) assumes the need for an extended period of classroom practice
in order to learn how to apply teaching techniques in real settings, whereas
a focus on low-inference aspects of teaching might operate on the assump-
tion that classroom skills can be developed under idealized conditions out-
side of an actual classroom.
Astrictly empiricist or craft-oriented perspective downplays the individ-
ual and the context-dependent, high-inference aspects of teaching, while a
highly individualistic view of teaching may underestimate the need for
mastery of certain areas of knowledge and skills in preparation for teach-
133
Martha C. Pennington
ing. The concept of profession can be seen to bridge these other concep-
tions of teaching, allowing for both an individual and a collective,
replicable aspect of teaching. Within the framework of teaching as profes-
sion, teacher preparation aims at the development of competency stan-
dards for the field and for the attainment of a certain level of competency
for all individuals, while underscoring the importance of individualized
professional growth throughout the teaching career (Darling-Hammond
et al. 1983: 291). Professional teacher preparation programs will have as
goals the development of an extensive repertoire of classroom skills and
the judgment to apply these skills as needed. In this way, teacher prepara-
tion moves beyond “training” in the narrow sense to enabling “an individ-
ual to function in any situation, rather than training for a specific situation
... preparing people to make choices” (Larsen-Freeman 1983: 265).
Thus, the philosophy of teaching as profession offers a rationale for
including both holistic and competency-based elements in the teacher
preparation curriculum (Britten 1985a; and in this volume: Richards,
Chapter 1; Ellis, Chapter 3; and Freeman, Chapter 7).
In addition, a teacher preparation program oriented to developing
teachers as professionals will have as central goals (1) to engender an
attitude favorable to continued growth and change, and (2) to provide
the skills necessary for analyzing teaching performance, for evaluating
new ideas, and for implementing those ideas deemed worthy of putting
into practice as part of the individual’s career growth. Specific sugges-
tions for implementing these goals, which incorporate investigative skills
(Gebhard, Gaitan, and Oprandy, this volume, Chapter 2) awareness-
raising, and experiential practices (Ellis, this volume, Chapter 3), in a
second language teacher preparation program are described in the next
section.

The role of education and training in professional

preparation

If teacher preparation aims to perpetuate second language teaching as

a profession, then training in the narrowest sense will not be adequate,
and some broader educational goals must be recognized. For successful
language teaching, both education and practical training are needed in
the “tools” of the teaching profession: in methods, materials, curriculum,
and evaluation. Part of this education involves theory, so that the teacher
will have a basis for thoroughly analyzing and evaluating the practical
aspects of methods, materials, and curriculum. The effectiveness of both
the purely educational and the practical training aspects of the teacher
preparation program can be increased by not maintaining the strict
separation of these two components that is typical in most programs.

134
 A professional development focus

Typically, candidates do not have actual chances to teach until the end
of their program. In many cases, they have little or no practical expe-
rience of any kind — for example, in the form of simulations, role plays,
case studies — before the formal teaching practicum in the final semester.
A prepracticum or two-phase practicum program in which students gain
simulated and actual teaching experience in the middle of their graduate
program may enhance integration of theory and practice.
For the lifelong professional, an important goal is flexibility in teaching
approach. This is partly a matter of attitude, an understanding that no
one teaching approach is appropriate for every situation. It is also a
matter of education and training, so that the teacher develops a wide-
ranging repertoire of knowledge and skills that can be called upon to
meet the demands of a given student population or classroom situation.
For long-term professional development, education can provide the con-
fidence and the knowledge to continue to reach and to grow, while a
practicum or prepracticum course can, for example, provide experience
in accepting feedback and implementing suggestions offered as feedback
by another professional — a colleague or supervisor. Education provides
the background for helping the teacher to understand what type of
feedback is appropriate in different situations; training can teach the
candidate how to give that feedback, both to students and to colleagues,
in a way that will be the most beneficial. Education also aims to build
tolerance in future teachers and teacher supervisors, reminding them
that there are many different perspectives on teaching, all of which may
be equally valid. Practical training experiences can also assist in the
development of attitudes that are open to differing perspectives and to
modification through experience.

Establishing an attitudinal base

Since every teacher and learner is different, teaching is most effective

when it is based on two kinds of knowledge: knowledge of the students
and knowledge of oneself. Exercises to develop self-knowledge and to
better understand one’s attitudes toward students supply a basis for
analysis of practicum experiences and for continued growth beyond the
practicum (see Wright, this volume, Chapter 6). Exercises to uncover
the attitudes that the prospective teacher holds about learning and about
teaching can capitalize on the candidate’s prior experience as a student
and use this experience as a starting point for examining beliefs about
what constitutes ideal classroom conditions. A series of five exercises to
make practicum candidates more aware of their beliefs about language
teaching and learning are displayed in Figures 1—S. Figure 1 presents an
exercise that asks the candidate to analyze prior experience as a language
135
YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A LANGUAGE LEARNER

Directions: Check the appropriate boxes in the left-hand column for the
language learning activities listed across the top of the chart. After you have
finished, notice which boxes you have checked most and consider what this
says about your language learning experience. Then complete the following
statements:
In general, my language learning My least enjoyable activity has been...
experience has been... My most valuable activity has been...
My most enjoyable activity has been... My least valuable activity has been...

Bee
EEE
Experience
experience
No Out
class
of
bal
iw
|_|
ied
Oe
Disliked Repetitive
Valuable
valuable
Not

Figure 1 Exercise on language learning experience

136
 A professional development focus

ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR A CLASS

Five rules for classroom behavior are identified by Seelye (1984: 291)
based on a study by Margaret LeCompte of teachers’ “management-type
behavior’:
1. Do what the teacher says.
2. Live up to teacher expectations for proper behavior.
3. Stick to the schedule.
4. Keep busy.
5. Keep quiet and don’t move too much.
These rules represent the expectations that many North American
teachers have about appropriate classroom behavior. Which of these
rules do you think are absolutely necessary? Are there any circumstances
in which such rules could or should be broken? Discuss your responses
with others in your group.
Now make lists of classroom characteristics that form the essential
conditions for a class in the categories of the behavioral and
psychological conditions of the students and the physical environment of
the classroom. Include only those features that are absolutely essential
conditions for teaching and learning to take place. Then compare your
lists to those of others in your group.

Behavioral Psychological Physical environment

Now compare and contrast the lists you developed in your group to the
list above that is based on LeCompte’s research. Finally, complete the
sentences below.

Sentences to complete
The three most essential conditions for a class are...
From this exercise, | have learned...

Figure 2 Exercise for identifying beliefs about classroom conditions

137
Martha C. Pennington

THE IDEAL STUDENT

It does not take most teachers long to make a judgment as to whether

individual students are “good,” “poor,” or somewhere in between. As
teachers, we tend to focus our evaluation on oral and written performance
and other aspects of classroom behavior. When our positive expectations
are met, we classify a student as “good.” Problems arise when students,
for a variety of reasons, often cultural ones, do not share our expectations
and are therefore doomed not to meet them.
It may be useful to try to define the “ideal” student and to consider what
causes us to rate a student as a “good” student or a “poor” student.
Consider the questions below to help you complete the sentences at the
end of the exercise.
a. What kind of student do you think is the easiest for you to succeed
with and why?
How would you define being successful with a student?
Do you expect success with all of your students? Why or why not?
. What kind of student do you like?
Do you expect most or all of your students to be of this type?
Are you most successful with this type of student? Why or why not?
. What kind of student do you think is the hardest for you to succeed
with and why?
How would you define being unsuccessful with a student?
What do you think are the major causes of iack of success with
individual students?
. Is there any kind of student that you do not like or that you do not feel
comfortable with?
Is there anything that really “turns you off’ in a student’s behavior?

Sentences to complete
What makes a “good” student is...
What makes a “poor” student is...
For me, the definition of the “ideal” student is...

Figure 3. Exercise to uncover attitudes toward students

learner. Figure 2 is an exercise to make candidates examine their as-

sumptions about the teaching and learning processes and how these are
affected by the general atmosphere of the class and the classroom en-
vironment. The exercise illustrated in Figure 3 aids in determining at-
titudes toward different types of students, and that in Figure 4 helps to
bring attitudes toward teaching to conscious awareness. The exercises
in Figure 5, which ask candidates to examine the contrast between real
teaching situations and their ideal teaching situation, can be used as the
final activity in this series of exercises.

138
 A professional development focus

EFFECTIVE TEACHING: WHO GETS THE APPLE?

Answer these questions based on your own experience as a student.

a. What kind of teacher has been most successful with you? How do you
define “successful” in this context? To what do you attribute this
success?
b. What kind of teacher do you like? Have the teachers you like been the
same ones that have been most successful with you?
c. What kind of teacher has been most unsuccessful with you? How do
you define “unsuccessful” in this context? To what do you attribute this
lack of success?
d. Is there any kind of teacher that you do not like or that you do not feel
comfortable with?

Now, brainstorm to make a list of behavioral or personality traits that you

think are related to being a “good” teacher. Then compare your answers
with those of others in your group. You may also wish to make a
contrasting list of characteristics of a “poor” teacher.

Good Poor

Try to examine yourself in light of the characteristics of “good” teachers

which most of the members of your group agreed upon. Put a plus next to
those characteristics that you feel reasonably match characteristics of
yourself, and put a minus next to those that you do not feel describe you
as a person or as a teacher. Now, go back to your group to see if you
wish to change anything on your original list of characteristics related to
being a good teacher.

Sentences to complete
The most important characteristics of a “good” teacher are...
A characteristic of a “good” teacher which | may not at the present time
share is...

Figure 4 Exercise to uncover attitudes about teaching

139
Martha C. Pennington

COMPARISON OF REAL AND IDEAL TEACHING SITUATIONS

Think of a real teaching situation with which you are familiar. This can be
a classroom in which you have been or are a student or a teacher. What
is the teaching situation that you are thinking of?
For each of the points a—f, describe this actual teaching situation in
column 1. Then, using the same points a—f, describe what you think
would be the ideal teaching situation.

(1) Actual (2) Ideal

teaching teaching
situation situation
. Characteristics of the school

. Characteristics of the
administration

. Characteristics of the teachers

. Characteristics of the students

. Success and failure rates of the

teachers

. Success and failure rates of the

students

Figure Sa Exerciseto compare characteristics of ideal and actual

teaching situations

140
 A professional development focus

COMPARISON OF REAL AND IDEAL TEACHING SITUATIONS (cont'd)

After you have completed columns 1 and 2 for points a—f, compare your
lists with those of others in your group. Then try to summarize the main
differences between the actual and the ideal teaching situations that you
and others have described, and give reasons for these differences in
columns 3 and 4 below. When you have finished filling in columns 3 and
4, complete the sentences at the end of the exercise.

(3) Main
differences (4) Reasons
between 1 and 2 for column 3
. Characteristics of the school

. Characteristics of the
administration

. Characteristics of the
teachers

. Characteristics of the
students

. Success and failure rates of

the teachers

. Success and failure rates of

the students

Sentences to complete
The main differences between the ideal and the real teaching situations
are...
The primary reasons for these differences are...

Figure 5b Exercise to explore reasons for differences between ideal

and actual teaching situations
141
Martha C. Pennington

These exercises are intended to be facilitated by an experienced teacher

educator skilled in group process who can ensure that each one is carried
out in an appropriate format and time frame, and that its implications
will be fully apparent to the candidates. The success of the exercises is
related to the amount of time spent in completing them. If sections are
skipped or covered in a superficial way, the exercise as a whole will not
have the impact that it can have if each section is given the same thought-
ful consideration. Except for the first exercise, which does not explicitly
refer to members of a larger group, the exercises generally involve an
introspective part and a group-comparison part, followed by a personal
summation in the form of sentences to complete. In all cases, a follow-
up whole-class discussion guided by the teacher educator is important
to the success of the exercises. Such guided discussion establishes patterns
of interaction in the group and a shared frame of reference for feedback
in later stages of the practicum when candidates discuss their own teach-
ing experiences. It also gives the teacher educator important information
about the needs and preferences of individual candidates, which is es-
sential if the practicum is to affect their behavior positively and
significantly.
Each exercise provides a certain degree of structure to guide intro-
spection and the class discussions growing out of the introspective ac-
tivities. There is no right or wrong response to any question, nor is a
uniform outcome expected among candidates. The teacher educator
should allow each candidate to have an individual response to the ex-
ercises, and should not insist on a preordained agenda. Any thoughtful
response should be accepted as valid. The point of the exercises is to
put candidates in touch with their own experiences and attitudes that
will be shaping their future teaching and to increase their awareness and
acceptance of other behavior and responses in the same contexts, thus
opening them up to potential modification by experience. Taken as a
set of related activities, the exercises are thus oriented toward long-range
developmental goals, rather than toward any immediate response or
outcome. In what follows, some general guidelines are offered for the
implementation of each exercise.
Your Experience as a Language Learner (Figure 1). The exercise is
designed to guide individual candidates in recalling their own experiences
as language learners and to provide a basis for comparison across the
experiences of different individuals. By filling out the chart, candidates
can summarize a great deal of experience in a form that allows easy
comparison. Through the choice of categories in the exercise and the
visual display in columns, they are led as individuals and as a group to
think about the relationship between (a) the positive and negative values
they place on certain language learning activities and (b) certain char-
acteristics of the activities, such as whether they involved other people,

142
 A professional development focus

or took place inside or outside of class. Sometimes the exercise results

in a realization that learning experiences that took place outside of class
were the most valuable and enjoyable. Other times, participants recall
their own positive experience with highly structured learning activities,
such as dictation or use of a language lab. Participants are usually sur-
prised by the amount of variation in responses within a group of pro-
spective teachers.
Essential Conditions for a Class (Figure 2). Most candidates will be
led by this exercise to see that the five “classroom rules” listed are
unnecessarily negative or overly restrictive, and so are in general neither
absolutely essential conditions for a class nor necessarily desirable for
effective teaching and learning. Some groups start from scratch in de-
veloping their own essential classroom conditions, using the three cat-
egories provided in the exercise. Here the facilitator plays an important
role in helping the group to probe the intent of each of the five rules
and the necessity of each proposed essential condition in the listing
activity. For example, practicum candidates who start out requiring
under Physical environment “realia” of various sorts, such as black-
boards and pencils, may eventually concede that these are not entirely
necessary for some kind of organized learning to take place. Some groups
may want to try to rework the five statements into a more positively
oriented set of guidelines for classroom behavior. It is not uncommon
in either case for groups to end up retaining some aspect of the five
statements in their ultimate responses to the exercise, maintaining the
need for a basic level of respect and discipline in a classroom as a
precondition for teaching and learning.
The Ideal Student (Figure 3). Although human beings are generally
selective in their attraction to and their association with other human
beings, a teacher must operate from an egalitarian perspective. This
exercise is a starting point for reinforcing this perspective by raising the
candidates’ level of awareness of their own biases about individual stu-
dents and student behaviors. This goal is accomplished by examining
the relationship between individual perceptions of student characteris-
tics, student success, and teaching effectiveness. Through a follow-up
discussion in the larger group, the exercise also reveals differences among
individual candidates that account for the differences in response
to questions a—d. The exercise thus increases self-knowledge while
reinforcing the validity of individual differences in perception and
behavior.
Effective Teaching: Who Gets the Apple? (Figure 4). It is common
for practicum courses to include a class session in which candidates
discuss the attributes of “good” and “poor” teachers. This exercise
provides a structure for this type of discussion, which builds on the
previous exercise and then follows up with a group discussion and an
143
Martha C. Pennington

introspective activity that explicitly relates the exercise to the candidate’s

own attributes. In asking them to consider their own attributes in light
of both positive and negative values about teachers, candidates begin to
evolve personal standards and goals for their future teaching in the
practicum and beyond.
Comparison of Real and Ideal Teaching Situations (Figure 5). The
sequence of activities in this exercise is designed to help candidates
accomplish several purposes: (a) to increase awareness of experience
through identification of certain characteristics of teaching situations
with which candidates are familiar; (b) to uncover perceptions of short-
comings in existing teaching situations; (c) to realize the constraints
under which educational institutions operate; and (d) to establish a view
of the kind of teaching situation candidates would like to achieve and
what is needed to move toward that ideal. The exercise is particularly
valuable if it is done after the exercises in Figures 1-4, as a way of
extending and summarizing the insights gained from those exercises.

Developing analytical skills

A case can be made for including a research component in the teacher

preparation program to refine certain skills that underlie continuing
professional growth. Research experience helps to build a foundation
for analyzing the published research on teaching, and so enhances op-
portunities for continuing education through reading in professional
journals. The prospective teacher benefits in a direct way from learning
how to conduct research on the behavior of students and teachers in
classrooms (Long and Crookes 1986; Gebhard et al., this volume, Chap-
ter 2). In the practicum as well as in other courses, future teachers can
learn how to conduct detailed observations of teaching and learning
behavior, analyze the data gathered, and put the analysis into practice.
Overview and critical assessment of theory and research help future
teachers to develop the judgment necessary for putting information into
perspective (i.e., for judging its value) and for putting that information
into practice (assuming it is judged worthy of putting into practice).
Practical training can also be offered for developing judgment, exposing
candidates to case studies and other kinds of problem-solving activities.
Practice in evaluating information and performance, both of others and
of self, should be a key aspect of the teacher preparation program, the
main goal of which is ongoing career growth.
To aid in learning how to assess student performance, candidates can
be given samples of student productions to evaluate. These may be
samples of written work or taped speech samples taken from a variety
of student populations. The samples can be analyzed to discover the

144
 A professional development focus

STUDENT CASE

You are a teacher in a large second language program whose

administration includes a director of courses or department chair, several
student advisors, and a clerical assistant. In speaking informally with you,
a student from your class suddenly states that she is very much
dissatisfied with her situation in the United States, so much so that she
wishes to return immediately to her home country.

Questions:
. What is the immediate problem?
. What might the direct and indirect causes of the immediate problem
be?
. What other potential or actual problems do you see?
. What else do you need to know (e.g., about the student or about the
situation relating to the problem)?
. How do you obtain the information that you need?
6. What should you say or do (a) when meeting with the student and (b)
after meeting with the student?
. What other people (if any) need to become involved?
. What are some things to watch out for or to be particularly sensitive
to?

Figure 6 Problem-solving activity based on student case

main error types and to try to characterize the learning stages of the
students. Based on this analysis, the candidate may then be asked to
decide on a proficiency grouping for the students and to make peda-
gogical recommendations for each of them. Assuming that the students
might all be in the same class, the candidate then decides on the main
teaching points for a lesson and develops these into a lesson plan. Such
an exercise works well as a group activity within the practicum or as
an individual project or take-home examination for a practicum course,
a methods and materials course, or as a section of a master’s exam. This
exercise is an example of a kind of problem-solving activity that teachers
are involved in quite typically in second language classrooms. Figure 6
provides another example of a problem-solving activity, this one based
on a case study.
Student Case (Figure 6). This exercise can be carried out in stages, as
a sequence of activities that begins with an individual or small-group
analysis of the case and then moves to a whole-class discussion. Given
sufficient time, it can easily evolve into an extended discussion on several
145
Martha C. Pennington

topics related to the case study, such as: (a) the difficulty of determining
the source of student problems; (b) the appropriate role of the teacher
in relation to students; (c) the extent to which teachers should become
involved in students’ personal problems; and (d) the question of when
it is appropriate to disclose information about individual students to
others with special authority or expertise. These topics generally relate
to the larger topic of professional ethics in teaching. The exercise in
Figure 6 can therefore form the starting point for a unit in which can-
didates seek to draft an ethics statement or code, as a way of examining
personal values and of trying to codify the philosophy of teaching in-
herent in a given field.
The exercise in Figure 6 or any other that involves analysis of situations
and behaviors can be followed up by a role play — in this instance, a
role play of a conference between teacher and student. Role plays for
putting teaching ideas into practice, and particularly those emphasizing
decision making and communication, are a valuable use of time in the
teaching practicum or teaching methods course. The role plays can be
videotaped and later analyzed for effectiveness of communication. Many
kinds of analytical and simulational activities can be based on videotaped
segments of actual classes or commercially available enactments of
classes. A sequence of activities beginning with a video viewing and
culminating in a role play between teacher and teacher supervisor is
illustrated in Figure 7.
Video Viewing and Role Play. Part One of this exercise (Figure 7a)
is intended to develop awareness of the differing perspectives that in-
dividuals may have on the same teaching event and to shape the com-
munication that will take place in the subsequent role plays. The role
plays of Part Three illustrate some of the difficulties involved in effec-
tively giving and receiving feedback on performance and in reaching
compromise solutions that are agreeable to more than one person. The
viewings should be followed in Part Two (Figure 7b) by general dis-
cussion, in which the teacher educator helps the candidates to extend
their lists of points. In Part Three (Figure 7c) candidates can be put into
groups of four, in which pairs alternate in the two roles as the other
two candidates act as observers. The first pair in each group can select
the roles that they prefer, and the second pair can perform the role play
with a different combination of roles. Feedback can be offered within
the group directly after each role play or can be reserved until both pairs
have completed their turns. A whole-class follow-up discussion can focus
on problems that the pairs faced in completing the task of Part Three.
The sequence of activities can be done more than once, using a dif-
ferent video each time. The video(s) to be used in this exercise should
be selected carefully, as the choice of video — especially the first time the
exercise is done — affects the outcome of the role plays. Starting out

146
 A professional development focus

VIDEO VIEWING AND ROLE PLAY

You will view a short videotape segment (10 min.) of a class three times.
Each time you will take notes on the video in the spaces provided,
according to the instructions. After the observations, you will participate in
a follow-up activity and discussion. These activities will supply background
for a series of supervisory role plays.

Part One: Observation

First Viewing [Objective Observer]: Watch the videotape the first time as
an objective observer: e.g., as a researcher interested only in correctly
recording as much data as possible. Record as many specific details
about what happens in the lesson segment as you can, focusing on the
behavior of both the students and the teacher.

Second Viewing [Complimentary Observer]: Watch the videotape the

second time as a complimentary observer: e.g., as a beginning teacher
who is very impressed with the person’s teaching. Look for things to
compliment and list as many positive aspects of the lesson segment as
you can find in the behavior of the students or the teacher.

Third Viewing [Critical Observer]: Watch the videotape the third time as a
critical observer: e.g., as a supervisor who feels that the teacher is not
performing up to par and that definite improvement is needed. Imagine
that you are looking for “evidence” to document poor performance. Look
for things to criticize and list as many negative aspects of the lesson
segment as you can find in the behavior of the students or the teacher.

Figure 7a Video viewing activity

with a videotaped segment of a poorly taught class or one taught by

someone known to the students can undermine the exercise. It is there-
fore recommended that the exercise be carried out first using a videotaped
segment of a class taught by someone unknown to any of the candidates
and previously evaluated by the trainer or other supervisor as a good
147
Martha C. Pennington

VIDEO VIEWING AND ROLE PLAY (cont'd)

Part Two: Preparation for role plays
As a whole-class activity, compare your list of behaviors in each of the
three categories of observation with those of your classmates. Add any
observations, compliments, or criticisms that you would like to your
original lists. Then summarize your observations in the categories below
in preparation for the role plays in Part Three.

Basic Structure of Segment Observed

Main Features of Behavior of Students

Main Features of Behavior of Teacher

Main Aspects to Compliment

Main Aspects to Criticize

Questions to Ask

Figure 7b Activity to prepare for role plays following video viewing

class.” Later, if the candidates’ own lessons have been videotaped, they
can complete Parts One and Two individually outside of class based on
the videotapes of lessons by their practicum classmates, then hold actual
postobservation conferences in which each member of a pair seeks to
2 Permission should be obtained in advance from the teacher who has been videotaped
for the use of the videotape in the exercise.

148
 VIDEO VIEWING AND ROLE PLAY (cont'd)

Part Three: Role plays

As a follow-up to the video that you just observed, two or more role plays
will take place. You will take the role of either the person just observed or
the teacher’s new supervisor. Both positive and negative roles are
provided so that you may try out different combinations of these. Assume
that you are having a conference soon after the observation has taken
place, as part of the normal teaching evaluation process. The aim of the
meeting is to review performance in the class observed and to reach
agreement on two potential areas for professional growth/improvement
and to develop concrete action steps that both parties can agree on to
accomplish the goals.

Teacher: Positive role

You have basic confidence in yourself and your teaching, yet you realize
that there is always room for growth and improvement. In the conference,
your primary objective is to establish a good working relationship with
your new supervisor. Secondarily, you would like to get some constructive
advice about your classes from the supervisor, whom you know to have
considerable experience and expertise in language teaching.

Teacher: Negative role

You lack basic confidence in yourself and your teaching, and you are not
comfortable accepting feedback on your teaching unless it is 100%
positive. Because of negative experiences with a previous supervisor, you
feel threatened by this conference. Your primary objective is to convince
your new supervisor that you are doing a good job and that no one needs
to worry about you. Secondarily, you want to establish the fact that you
have job security and do not have to listen to any advice.

Supervisor: Positive role

You are a confident and supportive person, with positive attitudes about
teachers and teaching. You strongly believe that a “carrot” rather than a
“stick” is more effective in changing behavior. Your primary objective is to
establish a good working relationship with the teacher. Secondarily, you
would like to discuss areas of common ground based on your observation
of the teacher’s class.

Supervisor: Negative role

You lack confidence in your abilities as both teacher and supervisor. As a
consequence, you tend to take a defensive, condescending stance toward
those you supervise. Your primary objective is to establish that you are an
experienced expert, and know how the teacher can improve teaching
performance. Secondarily, you want to establish that you have control
over the teacher’s job.

Goals (To ...) Action Steps (By ...)

fe
a

Figure 7c Follow-up role plays

Martha C. Pennington

interact with the other in a positive, cooperative fashion. The conferences

can be accomplished outside of class, with follow-up discussion in the
next class period, or during class time, with immediate follow-up on the
usefulness of the feedback and the success of the interaction within pairs.
A long class period is desirable for this type of activity, since immediate
follow-up is most effective. In general, class periods of two to three
hours can be put to good use in a practicum or prepracticum course.
This and other types of video-based activities can be more effective than
live experiences for certain purposes (Pennington 1985), since the video
can be viewed many different times, to reconstruct a scene over and over
again. If desired, certain parts can be focused on to make a point relevant
to a particular teaching objective, such as facilitating small-group dis-
cussions or eliciting responses from individual students. Video-based
exercises such as those illustrated in Figure 7 can offer training for real-
world observations that candidates will conduct in actual classrooms.
Feedback sessions following lessons at the practicum site or lesson dem-
onstrations for peers can be videotaped, and then candidates can discuss
the effectiveness of the feedback. In this way, practicum candidates will
be preparing for a future as professionals, both as second language
teachers and as colleagues or supervisors of other teachers.

Conclusion

As we seek to move second language teaching away from the status of

“magic” or “art”? and toward the status of profession, an important
goal will be public recognition of the existence of the field of second
language teaching as such. Part of the professionalization of language
teaching involves the codification of the knowledge of the field into
explicit goals for teacher preparation and effective methods for achieving
these goals. For continuing career growth and individualized develop-
ment, primary goals are:
— a knowledge of the theoretical base of the field in language learning
and classroom research;
— informed knowledge of self and students;
— attitudes of flexibility and openness to change;
— decision-making and communication skills;
— the analytical skills necessary for assessing different teaching situations
and the changing conditions in a classroom;
— awareness of alternative teaching approaches and the ability to put
these into practice;
— the confidence and the skills to alter one’s teaching approach as
needed;
— practical experience with different teaching approaches.

150
 A professional development focus

Methods that involve the future teacher in practical experiences — both

simulations and real-life teaching experiences — and in analysis of these,
and which are grounded in educational experiences that include theory
and research, constitute a logical preparatory base for the lifelong second
language professional. Such methods, which apply the combined insights
and skills of these practical and intellectual strands in a practicum com-
ponent, are a fundamental part of a coherent language-teacher education
curriculum directed at the long-term development of its graduates.

15i
Questions and tasks

Chapter 7 (Freeman)

1. To what extent does the relationship between teacher educator and

student teacher parallel that between teacher and learner?

2. Freeman implied that the central goal of teacher education is ‘‘fos-

tering independent teachers who know what they are doing and why.”
Do you agree that this is a central goal of teacher education? To what
extent does the chapter illuminate ways in which this goal might be
achieved?

3. Evaluate Freeman’s options for intervention by completing the fol-

lowing table.

Teacher education
options Weaknesses
Directive
Alternative
Nondirective

4. As a teacher educator, how would you deal with the following sit-
uations if they occurred during practice teaching?
a) The practice teacher explains a point of grammar incorrectly.
b) The student teacher fails to deal with four students at the back of
the class who constantly disrupt others.
c) The student teacher persists in drilling a grammar point that is
clearly beyond the processing capacities of the learners.
d) The student teacher does not provide enough wait-time for most
pupilsto answer questions.
e) The student teacher talks for 80% of the lesson.
How would you characterize your responses in terms of Freeman’s three
options?

152
 Questions and tasks -

Chapter 8 (Gebhard)

5. What evidence is there in Gebhard that student teachers do change

their teaching behavior as a result of teaching practice?

6. Are the behavior changes described by Gebhard high inference or

low inference?

7. What created opportunities for change in teaching behavior?

8. To what extent does the Gebhard chapter reinforce the chapter by

Gebhard et al. in Part I?

9. What are the implications of Gebhard’s chapter for the organization

and management of practicum components in professional development
programs?

Chapter 9 (Pennington)

10. What is your understanding of Pennington’s concept of “profes-

sionalism”? In what ways is her concept shared by Freeman and
Gebhard?

11. Design a program that incorporates some of the activities suggested

by Pennington along with those of Ellis, Nunan, and Wright.

412. How realistic is the view that teachers should also be researchers?
What particular skills and knowledge would they need to fulfill this role?
Carry out a survey of practicing language teachers to determine:
a) how many read journals on a regular basis
b) which journals they read
c) what type of articles they look for.

13. Examine a teacher preparation program you are familiar with.

Which of Pennington’s eight goals (see her Conclusion) are reflected in
the program?

153
 eae ts weit" ia i j=

: ueutionsnod tc eet
| vetsha ly erie srinkoesre duels tacteicy ai‘4
awh main doitbaces msghia
I

voAceh cinealet ata

i.e Stadenr ;
eae? u “if + Pr oe * ane? = aes hie en
einer at
i |
eae pojnnsianne siiNR msds x‘Acne te momeslews
Be ae
pee: Rrothaelanbnedl arte bitty fy
eae _ xing S tino sake HS AR
i
Oe ttre epihe bichey’ wae dit
ie el | vere 7 a a ats eon ait ae ib renioe éduystion
arciee Slee 5 eta ae Taper Zi bsay ape ‘aubiicks ae 3
shee tne 7 i =

4 ay nig dey tyiseoa 3fiestas Pecpcth

Ree ei =" ‘Sorat sia os

b aeteiice
ese
rr7 toad

“ , aa f y
ee atineae thict
Part IV Supervision

The chapters in this section complement the discussion of the teaching

practicum in Part III by examining in further depth approaches and
options available in supervising student teachers. Despite the extensive
use of practice teaching experiences in teacher education programs, the
supervision provided within such programs is often left almost to chance.
Supervision may be left to a cooperating teacher who has had no training
or orientation to the supervision process, or it may be handled in ways
that fail to provide the student teacher with the most helpful kind of
feedback. These and other related issues are taken up by the contributors
in this section.
Gebhard suggests that many second-language teacher educators con-
tinually limit themselves when it comes to supervision. He then explores
alternative ways of carrying out supervision, and outlines six different
models of supervision: directive, alternative, collaborative, nondirective,
creative, and self-help—explorative.
Next Gaies and Bowers discuss inservice applications of clinical su-
-pervision from the perspective of the supervisor, focusing on the roles
supervisors must play in settings where other forms of professional de-
velopment, such as workshops, are limited or unavailable. They draw
a distinction between the teacher as supervisor and as educator, sug-
gesting that, as educators, clinical supervisors must do more than simply
focus on technical aspects of classroom management. The discussion is
supported by a description of professional development programs in use
at the University of Cairo and in Yugoslavia.
Fanselow closes the section with a critical analysis of the view that
major aims of supervision are to “evaluate” and to “help” teachers-in-
preparation. He provides an alternative view of supervision as a means
of encouraging teachers to see common classroom events from different
perspectives. A number of practical techniques and procedures are sug-
gested for realizing this alternative view.

155
 10 Models of supervision: choices
Jerry G. Gebhard

As ESL professionals, it is likely that most of us have experienced teacher

supervision, either as a supervisor, as a teacher being supervised, or as
an outside observer. If we were to describe the roles the supervisor played
in these experiences, they would probably fall into one or more of the
following categories:
to direct or guide the teacher’s teaching
to offer suggestions on the best way to teach
to model teaching
to advise teachers
to evaluate the teacher’s teaching.
These categories were elicited from many teachers and teacher educators
in several countries and appear to be a fairly representative sample. The
purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that supervision can be much
more than this.
Six models of supervision are presented and discussed: (1) directive,
(2) alternative, (3) collaborative, (4) nondirective, (5) creative, and (6)
self-help—explorative. The first model is offered to illustrate the kind of
supervision that has traditionally been used by teacher educators. This
model has some serious limitations, however. The other five models offer
alternatives for describing ways that we can define the role of the su-
pervisor and supervision.

Directive supervision

In directive supervision the role of the supervisor is to direct and inform

the teacher, model teaching behaviors, and evaluate the teacher’s mastery
of defined behaviors. There are at least three problems with directive
supervision. First, there is the problem of how the supervisor defines
“good” teaching. Second, this model may give rise to feelings of defen-
siveness and low self-esteem on the part of the teacher. Third, there is

Reprinted from “Models of supervision: Choices” by J. Gebhard, 1984, TESOL Quar-

terly 18, pp. 501-514. Copyright 1984 by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages. Reprinted by permission.

156
 Models of supervision: choices

the problem of assigning ultimate responsibility for what goes on in the

classroom. An experience I had as a teacher being supervised illustrates
these problems:
I had taken a part-time job at a well-known language school, and as part of
that job I was expected to be open to being supervised. One day a person I
had never seen before walked in and sat down as I was in the process of
teaching a reading lesson. I was trying out a few new ideas and wanted to
see the consequences of not going over vocabulary before having the students
read. Instead of presenting vocabulary, I was having the students read a story
several times, each time working on a different task, such as underlining
words which described the person in the story or crossing out words they did
not know. The supervisor sat in the back of the room taking notes, and I
became nervous. After about fifteen minutes of silence the supervisor came
over to me. She smiled and whispered that she would like to meet with me at
her office after class. She opened the meeting by leaning over, touching me
on the arm, smiling and saying, “I hope you don’t mind. I’m not one to beat
around the bush.” I sank a little further into my chair. She proceeded to tell
me that I should always write difficult vocabulary on the board and go over
it before the students read, that students should read aloud to help them with
pronunciation, and that in every class there should be a discussion so that
students have the chance to practice the new vocabulary.

This experience was one of several similar ones I had with that su-
pervisor and others at the same institution. At the time I wondered what
made the supervisor’s way of teaching more effective than what I wanted
to do. Now I know that it was not more “effective.” It was simply
different. It nevertheless appears that most people, including teachers,
supervisors, school administrators, the owner of the neighborhood hang-
out, and the person on the street, believe that they can identify good
teaching when they see it.
It is probably not, however, good teaching that these people see. It
is, more likely, their idea of what good teaching should be. Most people
would agree that good teaching means that learning takes place. But
how do we identify what specific teaching behaviors cause the students
to learn? Many years of process-product research have failed to identify
specific teaching behaviors which are unambiguously linked to learning
outcomes. Despite this, “the ultimate aim is still to end up with some-
thing helpful to say to teachers and their trainers” (Allwright 1983:
199). The search for effective teaching goes on. For these reasons, it is
difficult to justify prescribing what teachers should do in the classroom.
A second problem with directive supervision is that it can make teach-
ers see themselves as inferior to the supervisor, and this can lower their
self-esteem. For example, after I met with the directive supervisor I
referred to earlier, I felt doubtful about myself as a teacher. Another
negative consequence of directive supervision is that it can be threat-
157
Jerry G. Gebhard

ening. While going to work I remember saying to myself more than once,
“Oh, supervisor, don’t come today. Please don’t come today.” I knew
that the supervisor was not going to like what I had prepared. Rardin
describes this state of affairs clearly when she notes that “threat can
produce a ‘half-in—half-out’? engagement” (1977: 184). Although I
wanted to fully engage myself in my own ideas of what the students
could benefit from, I could not because of the overriding threat that the
supervisor would disapprove.
In other words, threat can cause teachers to become defensive toward
the supervisor’s judgments. Rowe has pointed out that if we feel that
we are being judged, we lose the “right to be wrong” (1973: 308). She
believes that if we lose this right, we can also lose the courage to try
new ideas, to explore more than one alternative, and to explore freely.
A third problem with directive supervision is that a prescriptive ap-
proach forces teachers to comply with what the supervisor thinks they
should do. Blatchford (1976), Fanselow (1987b; and this volume, Chap-
ter 12), Gebhard, Gaitan, and Oprandy (this volume, Chapter 2), and
Jarvis (1976) have all strongly suggested that this keeps the responsibility
for decision making with the teacher educator instead of shifting it to
the teacher.

Alternative supervision

Copeland (1982) discovered in his research on teacher attitudes to

supervision that some teachers feel the need to be told what to do
when they first begin to teach. He attributes this to their insecurity in
facing students without having the skills to cope with that situation.
Teachers from a number of countries have also pointed out that if the
teacher is not given direction by the supervisor, then the supervisor
is not considered qualified. The roots of directive supervision grow
deep.
However, there is a way to direct teachers without prescribing what
they should do. This way is through a model that Freeman (1982) calls
alternative supervision. In this model, the supervisor’s role is to suggest
a variety of alternatives to what the teacher has done in the classroom.
Having a limited number of choices can reduce teachers’ anxiety over
deciding what to do next, and yet it still gives them the responsibility
for decision making. Freeman points out that alternative supervision
works best when the supervisor does not favor any one alternative and
is not judgmental. The purpose of offering alternatives is to widen the
scope of what a teacher will consider doing.
Although Fanselow’s (1987b; this volume, Chapter 12) approach to
teacher supervision includes much more than the generation of alter-

158
 Models of supervision: choices

native teaching behaviors (see section on self-help—explorative super-

vision), he does offer suggestions about how alternatives can be used to
guide the beginning teacher. One way is to have teachers try the opposite
of what they usually do. For example, if students usually read silently,
the teacher can generate a lesson in which students read aloud to the
whole class or in pairs. Another way is to duplicate inside the classroom
what goes on outside of the classroom setting. For example, the teacher
can have students stand up when conversing. He also trains teachers to
be aware of “leaden” (as opposed to “golden’”’) moments — to identify
consistent problems — and to try alternative behaviors to resolve the
problem. For example, if students always come late to class, the teacher
could offer coffee or another reward to those who come on time, or
simply talk with the students or write notes to them about the importance
of starting class on time.
The aim, as Fanselow makes clear, is for teachers to try alternative
behaviors and to pay attention to the consequences. If teachers are
provided with strategies that give them a way to understand the con-
sequences of what they do, teachers can gradually rely on themselves to
make teaching decisions.
Alternative supervision could have been used in the situation I de-
scribed at the beginning of this chapter. Instead of prescribing what I
should have done with my reading lesson, the supervisor could have had
me describe (1) what I did that day and then (2) the opposite of what
I did. She could have requested that I try the opposite to see what
happens, which could have taught me a strategy of paying attention to
the different consequences on the students’ behavior of doing lessons
differently. Or, the supervisor could have said something like, “I don’t
know what the best way to teach a reading lesson is. You will have to
make those decisions for yourself. However, I can share my experience.
Let me give you three ways to teach a reading lesson. You can try the
one you like or try all three on different days. The first way you can
teach a reading lesson is...”

Collaborative supervision

Within a collaborative model the supervisor’s role is to work with teach-

ers but not direct them. The supervisor actively participates with the
teacher in any decisions that are made and attempts to establish a sharing
relationship. Cogan (1973) advocates such a model, which he calls “clin-
ical supervision.” Cogan believes that teaching is mostly a problem-
solving process that requires a sharing of ideas between the teacher and
the supervisor. The teacher and supervisor work together in addressing
a problem in the teacher’s classroom teaching. They pose a hypothesis,
159
Jerry G. Gebhard
experiment, and implement strategies that appear to offer a reasonable
solution to the problem under consideration.
Going back once more to the supervisory situation I was in, collab-
orative supervision could have been used thus: Instead of telling me what
I should have done, the supervisor could have asked, “What did you
think of the lesson? How did it go? Did you meet your objective?” This
would be said in a positive, interested, and nonjudgmental way. Then
the supervisor could have more easily understood my ideas, the problems
I saw in the lesson, and my objectives. It would have been possible for
the supervisor to also have input, to make suggestions, and to share her
experience. A decision about what to do next could have been made
together.
It is worth mentioning that although the ideals of equality and the
sharing of ideas in a problem-solving process can be appealing, the ideal
and the real are sometimes far apart. Not all teachers are willing to
share equally in a symmetrical, collaborative decision-making process.
A colleague from the Middle East remarked to me that if, as a supervisor,
he attempted to get teachers to share ideas with him, the teachers would
think that he was not a very good supervisor.

Nondirective supervision

The essence of nondirective supervision is captured in the following

observation by a teacher-in-preparation: “My supervisor usually at-
tempts to have me come up with my own solutions to teaching problems,
but she isn’t cold. She’s a giving person, and I can tell that she cares.
Anyway, my supervisor listens patiently to what I say, and she consis-
tently gives me her understanding of what I have just said.”’ The same
teacher also expressed the consequences of this type of supervision for
her when she added, “I think that when my supervisor repeats back to
me my own ideas, things become clearer. I think this makes me more
aware of the way I teach — at least I am aware of my feelings about
what I do with students.”
Supervisors who listen and demonstrate an understanding of what the
teacher has said are providing what Curran (1978), who bases his ideas
on the work of Carl Rogers, calls an “understanding response.” An
understanding response is a “re-cognized” version of what the speaker
has said. In supervisiOn, the supervisor does not repeat word-for-word
what the teacher has said but rather restates how he or she has under-
stood the teacher’s comments.
Applying a nondirective approach to the supervisory situation I de-
scribed at the beginning of this chapter, the supervisor could have
said something like, ““You just explained to me what and why you

160
 Models of supervision: choices
did what you did in the classroom. Let me see if I understand what
you said. You told me that you wanted to see the consequences of
trying a reading lesson where the students read silently while doing
tasks, such as underlining words which describe the main character in
the story. You said that you did not write vocabulary on the board
because you wanted to see if the students would come up with the
words they wanted to learn. You also said that you wanted students
tose,
According to those foreign and second language teacher educators
who have discussed a nondirective supervisory approach (Dowling and
Sheppard 1976; Early and Bolitho 1981; Freeman 1982), if the super-
visor had been more nondirective when supervising me, I could have
had the freedom to express and clarify my ideas, and a feeling of support
and trust could have grown between the supervisor and me. I could have
realized a freedom to try new ideas and to fully invest myself in what I
was doing. I could also have had the chance to raise questions about
myself as a teacher and about the consequences that my teaching had
on the students. I could have gained experience in making decisions on
my own, and I could have further realized my own responsibility for
my teaching behavior.
Nondirective supervision can also have a different result. Some teach-
ers report that it makes them feel anxious and alienated. One reason
for anxiety may be due to the inexperience of the teacher. For example,
I once supervised a new teacher through mostly nondirective means. At
one point he asked, “But what do you think I should do in the classroom?
How can I know what to do if I have no experience doing it?” If we
follow the assumption that teachers benefit from what they think they
need (Copeland 1982), then a nondirective model of supervision might
not always be appropriate.
The way the supervisor understands nondirective supervision could
also cause the teacher anxiety. Perhaps the supervisor has simply been
using the surface techniques while ignoring the deeper philosophical
principles. “To borrow only certain outward features of the approach
without understanding what its real power is would be like using an
airplane only as a car or a sophisticated computer only as a typewriter”
(Blair 1982: 103-4).
At the deeper philosophical level, we need to understand the impor-
tance of working with the “whole person” of the learner (Curran 1976,
1978; Rardin 1977; Taylor 1979; Stevick 1980). Curran advocated such
techniques as the nonjudgmental “understanding response”’ to break
down the defenses of learners, to facilitate a feeling of security, and to
build a trusting relationship between learners and the teacher. This trust-
ing relationship allows the teacher and learners to “quest” together to
find answers to each learner’s questions.
161
Jerry G. Gebhard

Creative supervision

De Bono’s statement that “any particular way of looking at things is

only one from among many other possible ways” (1970: 63) serves as
the basis of creative supervision. Each model of supervision presented
thus far in some way limits our way of looking at supervision. The
creative model encourages freedom and creativity in at least three ways.
It can allow for (1) a combination of models or a combination of su-
pervisory behaviors from different models, (2) a shifting of supervisory
responsibilities from the supervisor to other sources, and (3) an appli-
cation of insights from other fields that are not found in any of the
models.
Working with only one model can be appropriate, but it can also be
limiting. Sometimes a combination of different models or a combination
of supervisory behaviors from different models might be needed (Free-
man, this volume, Chapter 7). Freeman (1982), for example, selects a
particular supervisory approach according to the type of information
the teacher is seeking. If new teachers are trying to find out “what” to
teach, he uses a directive approach. If they want to know “how” to
teach, he uses an alternatives approach. If they want to know “why”
they teach, he uses a nondirective approach. One supervisor I know likes
to work with teachers through alternative supervision and will some-
times model the alternatives. Gradually he starts to use nondirective
supervision as the teachers gain the ability to generate their own alter-
natives and understand the consequences of what they do in the class-
room. Another colleague approaches supervision through a nondirective
model; after she gains the teachers’ trust, she begins to collaborate more
with them. The number of combinations is endless.
A second way that a creative model of supervision can be used is to
shift supervisory responsibility from the supervisor to another source.
For instance, teachers can be responsible for their own supervision
through the use of teacher centers (Zigarmi 1979). Teacher centers are
places where teachers can go to find answers to questions, use resources, °
and talk about problems with other teachers or special “consultants”
or “supervisory experts.” Rather than the supervisor going to the teach-
ers, the teachers can go to the teacher center. Another way to shift
responsibility away from the supervisor is to have peer supervision,
where fellow teachers observe each others’ classes. In this case there is
no supervisor. I have seen this done in Thailand at the university level
where teachers were friends, had no reason to defend their teaching,
and enjoyed trying out new ideas in their classes.
A third way that creative supervision can be used is through the
application of insights from other fields which are not found in any of
the models. For example, some teacher educators have adapted obser-

162
 Models of supervision: choices

vation systems originally developed for research, such as Moskowitz’s

(1971) and Jarvis’s (1968) adaptations of Flanders’s (1960) Interaction
Analysis, to help them observe and supervise practice teachers. Other
teachers prefer Fanselow’s (1977a, 1987b) FOCUS (Foci on Commu-
nication Used in Settings) because the five major categories and many
subcategories within FOCUS can be used easily as a metalanguage to
talk about teaching in nonjudgmental and specific terms.
The application of observation systems has been a valuable asset to
supervisors. It allows them to describe rather than prescribe teaching,
and observation systems provide a means through which teachers can
continue to monitor and study their own teaching. But why stop there?
Why not apply yoga and meditation techniques to teacher supervision?
Leadership training from business management? Ethnographic inter-
viewing techniques? Storytelling skills used in Hawaiian folklore? Use
of metaphors in counseling? As Fanselow (1983) makes clear, we will
never know the consequences of trying new ideas in the preparation of
teachers if we keep doing the same things over and over again.

Self-help—explorative supervision

The self-help—explorative model of supervision is an extension of creative

supervision. The emergence of this model is the result of the creative
efforts of Fanselow (1977a, 1981, 1987b, and Chapter 12 in this vol-
ume), who proposes a different way to perceive the process that teachers
go through in their development, one that provides opportunities for
both teachers and supervisors (or “visiting teachers,”’ as Fanselow, this
volume, suggests supervisors be called) to gain awareness of their teach-
ing through observation and exploration. The visiting teacher is not seen
as a “helper” (which is the basis for other models of supervision) but
as another, perhaps more experienced, teacher who is interested in learn-
ing more about his or her own teaching and instills in teachers the desire
to do the same. The aim is for both the visiting teacher and teacher to
explore teaching through observation of their own and others’ teaching
in order to gain an awareness of teaching behaviors and their conse-
quences, as well as to generate alternative ways to teach.
The goal to “see teaching differently” is achieved not because the
supervisor has helped the teacher to do so, but because the teacher has
discovered a way to view his or her own teaching differently through
self-exploration. The aim is likewise for teachers, including the visiting
teacher, to construct and reconstruct teaching based on awareness gained
from observations of teaching. As Fanselow (this volume) states, based
on knowledge gained from the ideas of Paulo Freire, ““When we observe
others to gain self-knowledge and self-insight and when we generate our
163
Jerry G. Gebhard
own alternatives based on what we see others do, we construct our
knowledge” (p. 184). .
As a part of the awareness-generating process, teachers visit each
other’s classes or gather to observe a fellow teacher’s class in progress.
During these observations teachers take notes in order to capture what
is going on. Teachers also audiotape their own teaching or have their
teaching videotaped. These tapes are later used as a way for teachers to
study their teaching alone or with other teachers. In order to study the
interaction in the classrooms they observe on tape, teachers take notes
or make short transcripts from segments of the tapes (what Fanselow
calls “‘vignettes”’). (For a discussion of observation procedures, see Day,
this volume, Chapter 4.)
Teachers practice describing the teaching they see rather than judging
it. Language that conveys the notions of “good,” “‘bad,” “better,”
“best,” or “worse” is discouraged, because judgments impede clear un-
derstanding. Judgments are also avoided because there is, as discussed
earlier, little proof that any one way of teaching is more effective than
another. (This claim is to be distinguished from research studies that
have shown certain kinds of teaching activities to promote or inhibit
second language acquisition.)
Part of the process of exploration is to classify or group aspects of
teaching that are observed. For example, it is possible for teachers to
group the kinds of questions they ask students into “yes/no,” “either—
or,” “tag,” or “Wh-.” It is also possible to group or classify the target
for each question by sex or by where students are sitting in the classroom
(front, back, middle). Finally, questions can be classified according to
content; for example, questions about language, personal questions,
general knowledge questions. Such grouping provides a way for teachers
to see teaching differently from how they previously viewed it. As Fanse-
low (this volume, p. 187) points out:
By seeing that there are many ways to group the same communications, we
basically are developing a checklist of options and the multiple characteristics
of each.
As such lists and groupings expand, ways to vary our teaching — use
different options — become more and more evident. Each activity, and the
groups it fits in, provides at least one more variable, with a distinct range of
characteristics, that we can manipulate in our own teaching.

Teachers could créate their own groupings, but it is recommended

that teachers use the categories of others (found in their observation
systems) to describe and study teaching. There are at least two reasons
for doing this. First, as Lortie (1975) points out, the absence of a common
technical language limits the teacher’s abilities to communicate ideas
about teaching. The language used in someone else’s category or ob-

164
 Models of supervision: choices

servation system can supply teachers with such a metalanguage. Second,

a technical language not only provides a common language to talk about
teaching, but affords teachers a way to be explicit and highly analytical.
It is possible to view teaching not only through any one category but
across categories, thus allowing teachers to see patterns in teaching.
There are several category systems that teachers can learn. Ullmann
and Geva (1982) have designed a system called TALOS (TArget Lan-
guage Observation Scheme); Allen, Frohlich, and Spada (1984; see also
Spada, this volume, Chapter 19) a system called COLT (Communicative
Orientation of Language Teaching), and Fanselow’s FOCUS. Each sys-
tem provides teachers with a language to talk about teaching and a way
to analyze the teaching they observe.
In my experience, use of observation systems to classify and talk about
teaching seems to provide much awareness about teaching possibilities.
For example, one teacher told me, ““You know, when I use FOCUS to
guide my observations of the teaching I see, I gain an incredible amount
of knowledge not only about how other teachers view teaching, but also
about how I can see my own teaching differently as well as consider
what changes I can make in my teaching.”
Gebhard, Gaitan, and Oprandy (this volume, Chapter 2) offer guide-
lines on providing opportunities for teachers to more systematically
explore teaching. Teachers are encouraged to select some aspect of their
teaching they are interested in learning more about, such as the conse-
quences on classroom interaction of using space in different ways; how
adding paralinguistic mediums (gestures, touch, use of space), nonlin-
guistic mediums (objects, silence), or linguistic visual mediums (print)
changes the way students react to directions; the consequences of trying
out different behaviors in treating student errors; or what happens when
“input” is comprehensible and when it is not.
The guidelines include having student teachers video- or audiotape
those portions of their teaching pertinent to their teaching interest; mak-
ing transcriptions and coding the interactions relevant to the investi-
gation; studying the coded transcriptions for behavioral patterns;
describing how the teaching affects interaction; deciding on changes in
teaching behavior that will break the pattern; implementing the changes
while taping the classroom interaction; again transcribing, coding, and
studying the interaction for patterns and consequences; and finally, com-
paring the consequences of the old as opposed to the new pattern.
Although such investigative projects require time and interest, teachers
who do them learn not only about their teaching, but also about a process
that provides a means for them to explore teaching.
Returning to the supervisory situation | described at the beginning of
this chapter and applying the self-help—explorative models, we see that
the supervisor could have approached me with a proposal to join her
165
Jerry G. Gebhard

(and other teachers) in exploration. Rather than approaching me as an

authority whose job it.is to help me improve my teaching, she could
have explained that she was simply another teacher who is interested in
learning more about her own teaching by observing me teach. She could
have asked me if I would like to videotape my teaching, learn an ob-
servation system so that we could have a common language to talk about
the teaching we observe, and join her and other teachers in nonjudg-
mental discussion of teaching and its consequences. Perhaps in time I
would have become interested, through her example, in doing investi-
gative projects of teaching. We could have shared the joy of discovery,
generation of teaching ideas, and awareness.

Conclusion

Many second-language teacher educators seem to limit their approach

to supervision and their choice of supervisory behaviors. In doing so
they risk restricting or, in the case of very directive supervision, even
retarding teachers’ progress in assuming responsibility for their own
teaching and in developing their talents as professional teachers. This
does not have to be the case, for there is a wide choice of supervisory
behaviors that teacher educators can select from. Each supervisor will
have to discover which supervisory behaviors work well. Unless we are
willing to explore and use new behaviors in our supervisory efforts, we
will never know the consequences that these behaviors can have on the
professional development of teachers. It is up to us to continually apply
this and other knowledge in our development of more and more so-
phisticated and productive teacher supervision.

166
11 Clinical supervision of language
teaching: the supervisor as trainer
and educator
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers

The role that effective teaching plays in the language classroom seems
to be regaining, quite deservedly, much of the attention it had lost in
some quarters of the profession during the last several years. Evidence
of this trend is seen in a recent flurry of position statements and other
documents which stress the priority of upgrading the preparation and
ongoing guidance of language teachers.
This chapter focuses on one aspect of teacher education: namely,
clinical supervision, which we define as the process by which teaching
performance is systematically observed, analyzed, and evaluated. In this
discussion, we limit the topic of clinical supervision in the following
ways:
1. We discuss clinical supervision in its inservice applications exclu-
sively. While clinical supervision is an important component of pre-
service preparation of teachers, we will be concerned only with its
use in monitoring, guiding, and improving the performance of prac-
ticing teachers.
2. Our discussion of clinical supervision examines this component of
teacher development from the perspective of the supervisor. We ex-
amine the roles that supervisors must play and the skills they must
have to perform those roles, and we are less concerned, for example,
with clinical supervision as it is perceived by teachers themselves.
3. Finally, our interest is in the roles supervisors must play in settings
where other forms of teacher development — conferences and work-
shops, professional books and journals, and regular contact between
teachers and the larger language teaching community — are limited
or unavailable, and where directives and advice on language teaching
come most usually from a highly centralized authority — for example,
a regional or national ministry. To amplify this latter point, we should
stress that we are not concerned here with clinical supervision in
settings where preservice preparation aims at providing teachers with
a broad repertoire of classroom strategies and techniques and where
extensive teacher initiative in the areas of materials selection and
classroom practices is a basic expectation of practicing teachers.
Having limited our scope in these ways, we can now introduce what
in very
we do cover. First, we examine the clinical supervision process
167
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers

general terms (from the perspective just described). In doing this, we

emphasize what for uss a key distinction in the roles language teaching
supervisors must play: namely, what we label the roles of trainer and
educator. As trainers, supervisors are concerned with technical improve-
ment: that is, in showing teachers that what they are doing can be done
better. As educators, supervisors must be concerned with strategic
change: that is, in showing teachers that what is done in the classroom
might be done differently and in sensitizing teachers to alternative class-
room practices.
This distinction is then further explored in two case studies, which in
turn suggest the need for and propose a systematic means of preparing —
supervisors for these dual roles. By looking at these two case studies,
one from Yugoslavia and one from Egypt, we argue that in language
teaching programs in many settings, the question of preparing super-
visors for the tasks they discharge needs to be seriously and systematically
considered.

Defining clinical supervision

It is useful to begin our discussion with an exploration of these questions

about clinical supervision:
1. What is clinical supervision? By clinical supervision, we refer to an
ongoing process of teacher development that is based on direct ob-
servation of classroom teaching performance. Clinical supervision is
a cyclical process consisting of three stages: a preobservation con-
sultation between the teacher and supervisor, in which the general
and specific goals of a classroom visit are established and in which
the teacher and supervisor discuss the context in which the obser-
vation will take place — in other words, the general conduct and
problems in the course as a whole; the observation itself; and a
postobservation analysis and discussion, in which strengths and
weaknesses are examined and proposals are made to improve sub-
sequent classroom performance.
2. What is the relationship between supervision and other components
of inservice development? There are a number of forms of inservice
development and support. The best known include seminars, work-
shops, summer programs, professional meetings, and journals. These
formats for professional development, to whatever extent they are
available, have the advantage of reaching relatively large numbers of
teachers efficiently and economically. The corresponding limitation
of these forms of inservice development, however, is that they are

168
 Clinical supervision of language teaching

generally “selected and developed for uniform dissemination without

serious consideration of the...needs of individual teachers’’ (Ser-
giovanni and Starratt 1983: 327). By contrast, clinical supervision is
aimed at the needs and problems of individual teachers, and the
supervision process itself is based on direct examination of individual
teaching performance.
3. What are the goals of clinical supervision? In the most general terms,
clinical supervision aims at promoting more “effective” teaching. As
Acheson and Gall (1980) put it, the supervision process has as its
goal helping teachers reduce the discrepancy between actual teaching
behavior and ideal teaching behavior.

Implicit in this statement of the goal of clinical supervision is the premise

that “effective” teaching can be described. This is an issue that has
perhaps generated more debate and controversy than any other in our
field (see Richards, this volume, Chapter 1, for discussion). It is, however,
common practice, in the settings in which we are interested here, for
there to be a fairly narrow and uniform specification of acceptable class-
room performance. This specification generally prescribes the linguistic,
methodological, and management skills that teachers are to exploit and
constitutes a definition of “‘effective” teaching in a given setting.
The disparity, then, between what a teacher is expected to be doing
and what the teacher has been observed to do, between the levels of
linguistic, pedagogical, and managerial ability that a teacher is expected
to have and the observed performance of the teacher, becomes the focus
of supervision. The role the supervisor must play in this process, how-
ever, will depend on several factors.
The fundamental factor is whether what a teacher is expected to do
is something that the teacher has been prepared to do. We contend that
for the clinical supervision process, there is a fundamental and often
ignored difference between teaching behaviors and attitudes that prac-
ticing teachers can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their preservice
preparation, to be familiar with, and those that have not been introduced
in the course of preservice or previous inservice development. In the
former case, supervision is a remedial training process; in the latter, it
is an educational one.
The training role of the supervisor is fairly obvious: It involves the
use of classroom observation to identify deficiencies and to bring these
to the teacher’s attention. It involves showing the teacher that what the
teacher has done can be done better. In their training role, supervisors
may choose from a number of procedures: informal demonstration of
the use of a technique, explanation of what should be done, or more
elaborate demonstration teaching. The key point, though, is that one

169
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers

presumes that the teacher knows what ought to have been done — how
a technique ought toshave been exploited, how a lesson ought to be
organized, how classroom control ought to be managed.
By contrast, there is the situation of teachers whose classroom per-
formance falls short of what is expected for entirely different reasons.
These can be thought of in general as problems that result from defi-
ciencies or gaps in preservice preparation, but it might be useful to list
some of the specific problems that fall into this category:
— the adoption of new texts that differ in one or more substantial ways
from previous text materials;
— shortages of teachers with conventional preservice preparation, re-
sulting in the use of personnel with no teaching preparation or a
different area of specialization;
— the introduction of paradigmatic (methodological) or pedagogical re-
forms that inservice teachers have not been prepared to implement;
— the establishment of new goals for a language teaching program (for
example, a shift toward developing aural-oral fluency); and
— the prescription of new teacher—learner role relationships in the class-
room, such as result when a central authority recommends a shift
away from frontal teaching in favor of more learner-centered class-
room work.
In settings in which other forms of inservice development are available,
responsibility for dealing with these problems is less exclusively that of
the supervisor, and supervision can focus more exclusively on “quality
control”: on monitoring teachers’ performance of what they themselves
have been prepared to do in the classroom. When alternative forms of
inservice development are not available, however, it is the supervisor
who plays a crucial role in educating teachers to implement changes in
the classroom. The supervisor, then, becomes the central link between
what an educational authority intends to have happen and what actually
takes place in the classroom.
Obviously, in pointing out the dual functions of training and education
which supervision involves, we run the risk of overstating the distinction.
Quite clearly, what supervisors do often involves a combination of the
two roles, so that clinical supervision in any one instance will generally
reflect a goal somewhere along a continuum between purely technical
improvement of teacher performance and exclusively educational efforts
on the part of the stfpervisor.
The distinction needs to be made, however, since it alerts us to an
important need for adequate preparation of supervisors. Unless the prep-
aration of supervisors gives sufficient attention to the dual roles of trainer
and educator, the likelihood of planned change taking place smoothly
and effectively may be seriously jeopardized. We contend that super-

170
 Clinical supervision of language teaching

visors must themselves be prepared, and that this preparation should

involve experiences and activities through which supervisors themselves
are trained and educated for their roles. In other words, supervisors
should be trained to provide training, and they should also be sensitized
to and educated in alternative approaches to classroom teaching and
learning. The first case study we report on may suggest why this should
be so. The second case study may suggest how this is done.

Case studies

Yugoslavia
We first look at English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher supervi-
sion in Yugoslavia: more specifically, in the Republic of Slovenia. To
do this, some background information on preservice preparation may
be useful.
Foreign language teachers — including EFL teachers — undergo dif-
ferent preservice education, depending on whether they are preparing
to teach at the primary or secondary level. Primary school teachers
are prepared at teacher training colleges, which are oriented to pri-
mary school pedagogy. Secondary school teachers undergo a uni-
versity education. Their program is more general — that is, less specif-
ically geared to teaching — than that offered in teacher training col-
leges. The university program does, however, include some
pedagogical subjects, and secondary school teacher trainees do a lim-
ited amount of classroom observation and practice teaching as part
of their preservice training.
Inservice supervision is designed primarily to support new teachers at
both levels and to provide assistance to the special needs of recent uni-
versity graduates teaching in secondary schools. This supervision is
shared by several different individuals. The director, or headteacher, of
a school is responsible for orienting a new teacher to the teaching and
administrative (clerical) procedures in the school. The headteacher’s eval-
uation of a new teacher centers largely on the teacher’s performance “as
a worker”: in other words, on how well the teacher functions as a
member of the school staff. During the first year of teaching, a new
teacher is paired with a senior teacher in the same school. The senior
teacher helps the new teacher adjust to the demands of teaching, helps
familiarize the teacher with school procedures, counsels the new teacher
— both by anticipating potential problems and by helping the teach-
er deal with difficulties that arise — and provides a model for the new
teacher to emulate.
The headteacher and the senior teacher are the internal compo-
Le
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers

nents of the supervision process, and their primary roles are as moni-
tor and counselor, respectively. The regional foreign language advisor
is the external component of inservice supervision, and it is the for-
eign language advisor who does clinical supervision. Although the
problem varies from region to region, in general clinical supervision
takes place less frequently than either teachers or advisor would pre-
fer. Classroom visits by advisors are in part evaluative; the advisor
determines whether teachers are teaching according to accepted prin-
ciples and whether they are following current methodological recom-
mendations. Only rarely, however, do evaluations of teaching
performance lead to the dismissal of a teacher; for this reason, in
conjunction with the fact that there is no merit system in which an
advisor’s evaluation might play a role, an advisor’s visit tends to be
viewed mainly — both by advisors and teachers — as serving a con-
structive inservice development function.
The main problem foreign language advisors face in their roles as
trainers is making sufficiently frequent classroom observations. Slo-
venia is divided into nine regions; each of these regions in principle
has its own foreign language advisor. Currently, however, there are
only five regional foreign language advisors in Slovenia: for Maribor,
Celje, Ljubljana, Nova Gorica, and Kranj. The other four regions are
looked after by these five advisors, who thus find themselves with
many more schools to visit than is practical. Though the regions dif-
fer to some extent in size and number of schools, the responsibilities
of the foreign language advisor for the Kranj region will give a rea-
sonably representative idea of a foreign language advisor’s supervi-
sory responsibilities. In this region, the advisor supervises 50 English
teachers and 15 German teachers in 28 primary schools, and a total
of 48 language teachers (30 English, 10 German, 5 French, and 3
Russian) in 14 secondary schools.
The more serious problem currently facing foreign language advi-
sors and teachers in Slovenia concerns the educational role that advi-
sors are expected to play in implementing a recent series of curricular
reforms. Within the space of a few years, three major curriculum
changes have taken place in English language teaching in Slovenia.
One was the adoption of a new series of secondary school texts.
These texts reflect the second major curricular effort: a much greater
emphasis on small-group and pair work in communicative tasks, a
major step away from almost exclusively teacher-directed classroom
activity. Finally, there have been directives to emphasize English for
special (vocational) purposes beginning in the first year of secondary
school English; by the third year, students are supposed to be work-
ing with materials geared very narrowly to their occupational or
professional aspirations.

172
 Clinical supervision of language teaching

These reforms have both proponents and critics among secondary

school teachers; nearly all teachers and advisors agree, however, that
the responsibility for providing teachers with the information and new
techniques necessary for these reforms to be implemented successfully
falls almost exclusively on the foreign language advisors. There is general
agreement among advisors that:
1. clinical supervision is currently not sufficiently frequent to accom-
modate the considerable amount of training and education that cur-
riculum reform of this scope demands;
2. the supervisors themselves are unprepared to provide teachers with
a clear specification of how their teaching behavior must change to
accommodate these new language teaching directives and materi-
als; and
3. perhaps most importantly, the sensitivity to and acceptance of the
need for change that supervisors must impart to teachers is something
with which the supervisors themselves are not entirely familiar.
Since English teachers in Slovenia have been encouraged for some
time to take some degree of initiative in organizing classroom lessons
and in choosing classroom activities, the perception of advisors that
their role in educating teachers through clinical supervision is one for
which they are insufficiently prepared points even more strongly to
the need for adequate preparation of supervisory personnel. This in
turn raises the following question: How can we prepare supervisors
to fulfill more effectively their roles as trainers and educators in situ-
ations in which they constitute the main link between classroom
teachers and decisions made at the highest levels of educational
authority?
The second case study, in which we describe programs and procedures
in somewhat greater detail, offers an example of a program of supervisor
preparation that takes into account the dual role that language teaching
supervisors must play.

Egypt
This section describes supervisor preparation programs introduced from
1981 at the Centre for Developing English Language Teaching (CDELT),
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Arab Republic of Egypt; and in particular
the Professional Diploma in Teaching English as a Foreign Language.
Candidates for the diploma are all qualified and experienced Egyptian
teachers of English. A major objective of the course is to train and educate
them so that they can train others: They enter the course as teachers,
and leave it as counselors and supervisors — generally within the senior
teacher role described earlier. Techniques of clinical supervision are
173
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers

incorporated into the diploma course for two reasons. First, the course
members must be provided with techniques whereby they can supervise
teachers in the field and promote effective learning — this is Gaies’s
“training” function at one remove. Second, as future leaders in the field,
they must be alerted to alternative strategies and techniques — the “ed-
ucational” function. The first approach encourages the short-term view
that what is already being done in the classroom can be done with better
results; the focus is on feasible adjustments in teacher performance. The
second approach encourages a longer-term perspective, that different
things can happen in the classroom and will have different results; the
focus here is on ideal directions of change in the national expectations
for teacher performance.
There is a further reason why clinical supervision figures significantly
in the program, and this rests upon the necessarily empirical nature of
classroom observational techniques. Through the native speaker exper-
tise provided by British and American agencies, CDELT seeks to make
available to Egyptian educators current developments in teaching EFL
in Britain and the United States. But it is Egyptian students and colleagues
who have the critical task of assessing the relevance of these ideas to
the particular conditions of the Egyptian classroom — a judgment that
we, as outsiders, are neither equipped nor authorized to make. We do
not believe that such a judgment can be made on purely theoretical
grounds. The development of an “appropriate” or “intermediate” meth-
odology must be based on clinical study of existing and suggested ap-
proaches and methods in the classroom contexts in which they are and
might be applied. The analogy with the aid concept of “intermediate
technology” is an instructive one.
Five principles underlie the clinical supervision component of CDELT
courses. These are:
1. There should be a balance between theory and practice, between the
“educational” and the “‘training”’ functions.
2. The feasibility of proposals for change in teacher performance should
be judged against the real constraints of the teaching context.
3. The personal sensitivity essential to effective counseling and training
is best developed within the security of a system or “‘paradigm”’ of
counselor—teacher interaction.
4. Observation should be systematic and focused, with evaluation based
on evidence available to the teacher.
5. Counseling should guide the teacher toward specified, measurable,
and moderate changes in behavior.
Examination of these principles offers an indication of the strategy and
content of the CDELT approach to supervisor preparation.
1. There should be a balance between theory and practice. The diploma
174
 Clinical supervision of language teaching

is a full-time course of 24 weeks. It includes 20 weeks of coursework,

in four blocks of 5 weeks each, and one 4-week block of practical
experience, in the middle of the five blocks.
During the first two blocks, along with courses related to language
improvement, there are lectures and seminars in introduction to lin-
guistics, theories of English language teaching, and teaching methods.
These satisfy the need to establish perceptions of what language is,
what teaching is, and alternative approaches to the teaching of
English.
In addition, the second block, leading up to the practicum, devotes
substantial time to developing a familiarity with techniques for obser-
vation and evaluation, training and supervision. Trainees watch tech-
niques in use, either by the trainer or by each other, and also experience
their application in the peer context to the remediation of their own
teaching performance.
The practicum is, unusually in our experience, a period not of teaching
practice but of training practice, conducted in local state preparatory
schools. Course members, working in twos or threes in a school with a
small self-selected group of teachers, get extended practice in preobser-
vation, observation, and postobservation techniques; they move from
unstructured to structured observations; and they practice their skills in
teacher counseling and training.
In the blocks that follow the practicum, the group reviews that ex-
perience, basing their discussions on the permanent evidence provided
by a range of observational techniques. Additionally, attention is
given to the production and peer testing of compact training mate-
rials centering on observed teacher deficiencies. Individual training
skills, such as presentation and demonstration, are practiced using
these materials.
Over the diploma course as a whole, therefore, we aim to incorporate
into supervisor preparation the five essential aims of teacher education
identified by O’Brien (1981: 54-63), which among them ensure theo-
retical appreciation and practical application:

Rationale (the explanation and justification of classroom procedures in

relation to psychological, sociological, linguistic, and educational
theory)
Experience (as teacher trainees, being subjected to the procedures of
observation, evaluation, counseling, and training)
Observation (as detached observers, watching the processes of obser-
vation, evaluation, counseling, training) .
Trial (practicing in simulated and real contexts the skills of observing,
evaluating, counseling, training) ;
Integration (through practical experience in the counseling context, and
175
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers
subsequent development of “action packages,” integrating new tech-
niques of teacher assistance into the existing pattern of supervisory
duties)
2. The feasibility of proposals for change in teacher performance
should be judged against the real constraints of the teaching context. It
is important for those new to supervision and counseling to recognize
their limitations and to avoid the stress and likely failure involved in
trying to tackle problems that they are powerless to resolve.
The recurrent problems that teachers wrestle with and about which
they are most likely to complain are, in fact, largely predictable,
though the scale and perceived acuteness of problems will vary from
individual to individual and system to system. Using techniques de-
scribed in Early and Bolitho (1981: 71-85), we therefore help our
trainees to recognize at the outset of their course what these recurrent
problems are. They are simply asked as teachers themselves to set
down, through individual introspection followed by group discussion
and class review, the ten problems that most prevent English teaching
in the schools from being effective. Consistently, the following figure
in the list:
large classes
inadequate coursebook (too difficult, boring, irrelevant, etc.)
inadequate time (or unwieldy syllabus)
pressure of formal examinations
poorly trained teachers
poorly motivated teachers (underpaid, etc.)
heavy workload (therefore, lack of preparation)
low student motivation
mixed, including low, student ability
lack of resources (particularly visual aids, language labs)
Once these problems have been recognized, we can discuss which of
them lie beyond the scope of the counselor/trainer, which can to some
extent be alleviated, and which can be substantially resolved. Such dis-
cussion sets broad realistic terms of reference for the counseling/training
process. It also incidentally offers the initial exorcism of unmanageable
problems as a counseling technique, which they themselves can employ
in future.
Teachers in third~world contexts are often suspicious of new meth-
odologies developed in what they assume to be different, supportive,
well-resourced, and trouble-free environments. Their receptivity can be
much expanded by the realization that most teachers anywhere suffer
from the same largely predictable constraints, and that new methods are
generally intended as steps toward minimizing such problems.
176
 Clinical supervision of language teaching
3. The personal sensitivity essential to effective counseling and training
is best developed within the security of a system or “paradigm” of
counselor—teacher interaction. In ideal terms, the relationship between
counselor and teacher is a matter for private negotiation, in which the
individual style of the counselor interacts with the personality and preoc-
cupations of the teacher to produce a unique prescription for the coun-
seling/training process in each case. This approach is in itself, however,
a ‘counsel of perfection.”
In practice, unlike the earlier report of the Slovenian experience, we
find that our trainees at Ain Shams are prone to approach the counseling
task in ways that are likely to prove unproductive. First, the role of
adviser often goes hand in hand with that of assessor or inspector; so
there is a tendency to jump to evaluation before the confidence of the
teacher has been won or reliable and communicable evidence accumu-
lated of teaching performance. Second, observational techniques will
generally tend to follow traditional procedures. They will, for example,
omit the preobservational phase; they will cover inadequate samples of
teacher performance; they may deliberately exclude investigation of the
early and often critical components of a lesson; and they may never have
access to other than prescheduled and thus probably stage-managed
““model”’ lessons.
In our supervisor preparation, therefore, we establish a definite
procedure for observation—evaluation—counseling—training. The pro-
cedure is insisted on in the practicum, and we expect the new coun-
selor to continue to apply it, on the assumption that with experience
it will be gradually modified, in just the same way as the novice
teacher initially works within carefully prepared lesson paradigms but
learns in due course and with the confidence that comes from experi-
ence to be flexible and responsive to the student reactions of the
moment.
Our paradigm is built on the assumption that the three stages of
preobservation, observation, and postobservation are essential. We build
these into a three-phase process through an analogy with the doctor—
patient relationship and the three phases of diagnosis, consultation, and
remediation. The paradigm we enforce is this:

DIAGNOSIS (H-O-R-A-C-E)

H — Hear. Listen to the teacher and what the teacher says about
objectives, methods, content, procedures for eval-
uation.
O — Observe. Watch the teacher in action, in as representative a set
of classroom situations as possible.
177
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers

R — Record. Use a variety of techniques to record for subsequent

discussion the events and skills observed.
A — Analyze. Use a variety of techniques to “make sense” of the data
collected.
C — Consider. Think about the findings, trying to justify all that has
happened. Relate the events to the intentions and lim-
itations of the teacher; the objectives and constraints
enforced by the system (institution, etc.) in which the
teacher works; and the principles of “good teaching”
recognized within the profession at large.
E — Evaluate. ~Only then reach a judgment of the teacher’s perfor-
mance. Praise where praise is due, and criticize in those
areas where adjustment is not only desirable but also
feasible.

CONSULTATION (S-S-S-S)

S= ' Sympathize. Begin the postobservation discussion by showing

that you recognize the constraints under which the teacher
operates.
Select. Avoid a comprehensive or global critique. Concentrate
on one or two critical features of performance — areas where
your advice is likely to be accepted and applied. (These areas
may have been predefined during H if the teacher has invited
attention to particular difficulties.)
Summarize. Be brief in your treatment of a point, offering com-
pact evidence for a manageable element of teacher behavior.
Study. With the teacher, give that behavior close consideration
— what happened, what did not happen, why, what alternatives
exist.

REMEDIATION (T-T-T)

Tes Try again:-Merely thinking and talking about what has hap-
pened will often make it possible for the teacher to modify their
own behavior. The easiest remedy is therefore for the teacher,
in his or her normal teaching context and unobserved, simply
to try again — to pursue a similar lesson activity with a greater
awareness of teaching performance and the options available.
178
 Clinical supervision of language teaching

T- Team-teach. Some options may require demonstration. It is

difficult, for example, to explain in words the characteristics of
effective drilling, or the efficient organization of group work —
such things are easier to demonstrate. The most effective dem-
onstration is the one that takes place in the teacher’s own class-
room and students. The most productive relationship may be
that in which counselor and teacher share a lesson, the counselor
initially teaching those elements with which the teacher lacks
experience.
T- Train. For some purposes or in some contexts, training may be
the most effective or economical or feasible strategy. This will
generally take place outside the classroom. It may be extensive
(full-time training, day-release, formal courses for groups of
teachers). It will often be informal (staffroom discussion). What-
ever its form, training should aim to incorporate the five ele-
ments of rationale, experience, observation, trial, and integra-
tion. At this point, individual clinical supervision ends and the
treatment of common problems on a group basis through train-
ing programs takes over.

4. Observation should be systematic and focused, with evaluation

based on evidence available to the teacher. Our trainees are offered a
wide range of observational techniques on the argument that all tech-
niques have strengths and weaknesses and that use of a variety of pro-
cedures tends to aggregate the strengths and neutralize the deficiencies.
We begin with relatively unstructured techniques of recording and
analysis — a diary narrative maintained by the observer, an uncategorized
teacher study, and a child study maintained over a period of time. Such
techniques leave room for the unadulterated perceptions of the observer.
They may encourage unsupported value judgments. They generally offer
a sequential description of what has happened but omit consideration
of what has not happened (and perhaps should have).
Semistructured techniques come next. These include the lesson anal-
ysis, working to an approximate prediction of the progression of a lesson.
In Egyptian preparatory schools, where patterns are set by teacher train-
ing and the prescribed textbook, paradigms such as that of presentation/
production/practice are largely applicable. An alternative semistructured
technique employs rating schedules that allow the assessment over a
fixed period of time of specific ongoing characteristics of teacher style.
Finally, practice in structured observational techniques requires the
presentation and discussion of a range of refined category systems, gen-
erally concentrating on verbal interaction between teacher and learners.
Techniques such as those developed by Flanders (1960, 1970) are used
both on a count-coding and on a time-lapse coding basis. In some cases,
179
Stephen Gaies and Roger Bowers

a transcript of the interaction allows subsequent detailed analysis of

forms and functions. .
Use of these techniques in the practicum is cumulative. Our trainees
enter the schools with the full battery of techniques and instruments at
their disposal. In the first week, they use only unstructured observation.
In the second week, they add semistructured procedures. In the third
week, they use these plus count-coding. During their final week, they
use all available techniques. At each stage, they are free to select the
particular features that they, with the teacher under observation, decide
to focus upon. Weekly workshops back at the Centre allow for discussion
of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
Emphasis throughout is on the need for value judgments to be sup-
ported by evidence in order to provide the teachers with information
about their performance which, because of their preoccupation with the
task, they are unable to collect for themselves.
5. Counseling should guide the teacher toward specified, measurable,
and moderate changes in behavior. The final principle is that of modesty
and caution. In consultation with the teacher, the counselor will be able
to present evidence and advice on a discrete range of teacher behaviors.
Within this, an ‘‘action plan” can be drawn up jointly with the teacher
for the remediation phase.
Often, however, it is useful to present an action plan not simply in
terms of the alteration of particular techniques and subroutines but
rather as a gradual progression toward the application of new “methods”
or the adoption of a new “approach.” In pursuing strategic change of
this kind, where we can assume continuity of contact between counselor
and teacher and continuity of pedagogical development, we are at the
point where the balance shifts from individual counseling to group train-
ing and from skills training toward a broader program of teacher ed-
ucation and curriculum renewal. Be that as it may, it remains important
that the changes that a teacher is counseled personally to make should
be small, manageable steps in the right direction — moves which though
small in themselves nevertheless represent steps toward a new classroom
regime; moves that can be theoretically justified as implying a more
communicative approach, for example, or less teacher dependence, or
more integrated skills development.

These then are the principles we apply and the procedures we impose
in introducing our course members to the techniques of clinical super-
vision. By providing Egyptian teachers, trainers, and inspectors with
these means of finding out what goes on in classrooms and what can
go on, we hope to perform a triple task. First, by putting our group
through this process of training and of education, we familiarize them
with attitudes and procedures which as trainers and educators themselves
180
 Clinical supervision of language teaching

they can use to support teachers in the field. Second, we are providing
them with a practical understanding of current professional develop-
ments in language teaching. Finally, by resting our program firmly on
the values of clinical supervision, we are offering empirical procedures
for assessing the relevance to Egyptian classrooms and teachers of ap-
proaches developed elsewhere. By coming to grips not only with new
ideas but with the evidence of what happens when they are introduced
into the local context, they equip themselves with the tools for estab-
lishing an appropriate methodology that can set realistic national ob-
jectives for teacher training and education.

181
12 ‘‘Let’s see’’: contrasting
conversations about teaching
John F. Fanselow

Aims of supervision and observation

When I used to ask teachers to write down comments they recalled from
conversations with supervisors or fellow teachers who had visited their
classes or had watched videotapes of their teaching, the comments and
exchanges between different supervisors/observing teachers and the ob-
served teachers seemed very different from each other. Others have found
this too. Gebhard (this volume, Chapter 10), in a review of different
models of supervision — different ways of making comments or of having
conversations about lessons between supervisors and teachers — uses
these labels: directive, alternative, collaborative, nondirective, creative,
and self-help—explorative.
Although the conversations I asked teachers to recall often indicated an
overall tendency to be, say, more collaborative than directive, or more di-
rective than nondirective, I consistently saw elements of many distinct
models in the same sets of comments or conversations. I also began to no-
tice that all the distinct models had the same aim: to provide a means for a
more experienced person to help or evaluate a less experienced person.
Two sources on supervision in second language teaching use the foliow-
ing words and phrases to characterize the purposes of the supervision
models they describe: functions as an arbitrator, commenting, evaluating,
helping, provides (Freeman 1982: 21); to direct or guide, to offer sugges-
tions, to model teaching, to advise teachers, to evaluate (Gebhard, this
volume, p. 156). All of these words indicate that the person doing the vis-
iting, no matter whether that person is following a collaborative model,
creative model, or any other, is there mainly to help or evaluate the prac-
tice teacher, fellow teacher, or inservice teacher-in-training.
On first thinking about it, what could be more reasonable than de-
signing models of supervision that provide ways for experienced people
to help or evaluate inexperienced people? But thinking about the idea
of help in other contexts provides a different perspective. Haven’t you

Reprinted from “Let’s see: Contrasting conversations about teaching” by J. Fanselow,

1988, TESOL Quarterly 22, pp. 113-30. Copyright 1988 by Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages. Reprinted by permission.
Winner of the 1988—89 Fred W. Malkemes Prize from the American Language Institute
at New York University and Language Innovations, Inc.

182
 “Let’s see”’: contrasting conversations about teaching

heard children shout to parents or teachers words like, “Let me do it —

don’t show me,” or “Don’t give me the answer”? When referring to the
need of children to be allowed to do things on their own, Montessori
(1967: 309) made the plea, Let them fill their own buckets. As Alinsky
(1971) reminded us:
It is a human characteristic that someone who asks for help and gets it reacts
not only with gratitude but with a subconscious hostility toward the one who
helped him. It is a sort of psychic “original sin” because he feels that the one
who helped him is always aware that if it hadn’t been for his help, he would
still be a defeated nothing. (p. 93)

The type of resentment Alinsky mentions is not necessarily universal.

Some people seem to like to be helped and expect to be told what to do as
well. For them, evaluations containing prescriptions of what to do are
welcome. In discussing the appropriateness of different models for teach-
ers at various stages, Freeman (1982) highlights the value of help and eval-
uation by pointing out that beginning teachers, for example, seem to
prefer models and direction to collaboration. But even while pleading for
help from the cooperating teacher or supervisor, many practice teachers
assert, ‘““The most valuable part of practice teaching was seeing other
teachers teach!” Seeing other teachers teach is not the same as being told
what to do by an evaluator, nor is it being helped by someone.
As a result of this keen interest that practice teachers and many in-
service teachers have in seeing others teach, my fear that helping people
can lead to resentment toward the one providing the help, and the fact
that prescriptions from a supervisor’s evaluations can be demeaning and
decrease the teacher’s authority and responsibility, I see the need for an
aim of supervision and observation different from the ones frequently
practiced and described in the literature. Whereas the usual aim of ob-
servation and supervision is to help or evaluate the person being seen,
the aim I propose is self-exploration — seeing one’s own teaching dif-
ferently. Observing others or ourselves to see teaching differently is not
the same as being told what to do by others. Observing to explore is a
process; observing to help or to evaluate is providing a product.
Besides leading to resentment, help can also lead to “learned help-
lessness” (Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale 1978). Helpful prescrip-
tions can stop exploration, since the receiver, as someone in an inferior
position being given orders by someone in a superior position, may easily
develop the “ours is not to wonder why” syndrome.
A conversation reflecting the aims of the usual models might go like
this: “Here I am with my lens to look at you and your actions and tell you
or discover with you what is right and what is wrong and needs to be im-
proved; I will then prescribe better activities or collaborate so we or you
alone can discover better activities.”” A conversation reflecting the aim of
183
John F. Fanselow
observation I am suggesting might go like this: “Here I am with my lens to
look at you and your actions. But as I look at you with my lens, I consider
you a mirror; | hope to see myself in you and through your teaching.
When I see myself, I find it hard to get distance from my teaching. I hear
my voice, I see my face and clothes and fail to see my teaching. Seeing you
allows me to see myself differently and to explore variables we both use.”
Although supervisors may consider their roles so set that empowering
teachers to make decisions seems impossible, such redefinition is possible
in any field. The role of managers in relationship to workers, for example,
is presently undergoing change in many companies.
Although observing others does not automatically lead to seeing one-
self differently, mainly because the aim of seeing others to help them is
so usual, over time an increase occurs in comments like these: ‘““That
teacher said ‘Ok, now’ to mark changes in activity just as I do”; “How
little each of us walks around”’; ““That teacher spoke to students at eye
level some of the time; I do so only during breaks.”
The model I am describing grows out of a range of sources, not only
my examination of many transcripts of teacher-supervisor conferences.
For example, Jarvis (1972) argued that in order for teacher preparation
programs to be truly responsive, they need to shift “the responsibility
for the decision-making to the classroom teacher ...It is perhaps time
to train the teacher to analyze his situation and make his own decision
for his situation”’ (p. 201). As Freire (1970) points out, learning “‘consists
of acts of cognition, not transferrals of information” (p. 67). Each of
us needs to construct, reconstruct, and revise our own teaching. He
reminds us that for learning to take place we need to resolve the “‘teacher-
student contradiction” (p. 67).
When we observe others to gain self-knowledge and self-insight and
when we generate our own alternatives based on what we see others
do, we construct our own knowledge and engage in the type of learning
Freire has advocated. In a discussion of education, Abbs (1986) has this
to say: “Authentic education is to be found in that act of intelligent
exploration... the first priority of teachers should be to secure the nec-
essary condition for the autonomy of teaching and for the freedom to
learn” (p. 21). Using the word supervisor — a person with super vision.
— hardly supports our autonomy. When I observe and when I invite
others to observe me, I refer to all of us as visiting teachers to avoid the
use of the word supervisor.

Practices

I and others have used various combinations of the following practices

in pre- and inservice master of arts and adult education programs. Any-

184
 “Let’s see”: contrasting conversations about teaching

one genuinely interested in exploring, in seeing teaching differently, and

anyone who believes that we can learn about our own teaching by seeing
others can use the practices.
In my experience, trying to observe and supervise with the aim of
exploring practices and of gaining insight into one’s own teaching does
not in itself enable us to stop treating observation and supervision as a
means of helping and evaluating others. For people to begin to learn
that they can see their own teaching differently by observing others, I
and others have found the following practices for collecting, describing,
and interpreting observations useful:
1. Short amounts of time have to be set aside for observation and
discussion.
2. Segments from observed lessons need to be collected by note taking,
taping, or transcribing.
3. The exchanges and activities in the segments need to be grouped in
a range of ways.
4. Finally, what was done, as reflected in notes, tapes, and transcripts,
needs to be related to notions, beliefs, and goals. Coupling this data
collection and analysis with discussions of freedom and the need for
each of us to construct our own knowledge helps many visiting teach-
ers to decrease their suggestions to others, to increase their descriptive
and analytical comments about the lessons observed, and to relate
their insights to their own lessons.
Although allowing time for discussions of observations as part of a
teacher’s load is a policy I advocate, this policy is rare. Even in teacher
preparation programs, there are not always long periods of time for
discussions. Rather than putting off observations and discussions until
sufficient time is available, thereby virtually ensuring that they will never
take place, I recommend limiting observations and discussions to as little
as five minutes.
Obviously, seeing five minutes of a lesson prevents us from seeing
lesson development. But look how much we notice in one-minute
commercials. In many classes, thirty questions are asked in a minute
(Hoetker 1968). A dozen instances of feedback — both the treatment
of errors and communications made after acceptable student moves
— can be seen in a minute as well (Fanselow 1977b). In a thirty-minute
period, hundreds of communications are made, each in split seconds
(Jackson 1968).
Though short segments provide much data, short discussions force a
limit to the number of communications that can be considered and the
number of alternatives that can be generated. Since one or two com-
munications often affect what is done and since many of our commu-
nications are unconscious, we can only hope to see and later try out one
185
John F. Fanselow

or two alternative communications per class period. Short time segments

do not of themselves lead to fewer evaluative or helping comments or
more exploration, however, and that is why the following activities are
used.

Collecting and describing data

TRANSCRIBING AND NOTE TAKING

The first step in our observations, no matter how long, is to capture as

many of the specific communications as possible by audio- or videotap-
ing, by taking notes, and by drawing sketches or even taking photographs
as communications are observed. Later, tapes can be transcribed to reveal
details missed in notes and sketches.
Observers can take notes, sketch, and transcribe as they wish. Many
put exchanges in dialogue form in their notes. But now and then, one
will put teacher communications in the left-hand column of a page and
student communications in the right-hand column to highlight them.
Many write one line and pause, forgetting that the purpose of looking
is to collect data, not to judge the teacher or think of ways to help the
teacher. Some prefer sketches to notes, noting the position of teachers
and students, their location, or expressions on faces of teacher or stu-
dents. Others note what is done rather than what is said — movements,
objects used, writing on the board.
Except for the instruction that observers are to write down only what
happens, not comments about what happens, no directions are given
about what observers are to note. Different observers often note different
communications, reflecting differences in the values of the observers.
Some observers write down things they are interested in seeing in their
own classes that they cannot see while they are teaching. Though two
observers are likely to capture some of the same spoken exchanges, they
are not likely to have the same account of how the exchanges were said
or what other communications were made. Discussing what took place
and listening to tapes will make clear a central lesson of observation:
What we see is not what takes place but what we value as important
to see; observing is selecting.
While transcribing exchanges, drawing sketches, or otherwise noting
or capturing specific: communications, we cannot write comments such
as these: ““To make the class lively, this teacher needs more activities”;
“This teacher should follow the responses with clearer feedback.” When
not taking hotes or transcribing, we tend to revert to our usual pattern
of thinking of ways to help or evaluate another. This is a sure way to
miss seeing anything differently, a sure way to limit our observations

186
 “Let’s see’: contrasting conversations about teaching

by trying to relate them to our preconceived notions of good and

bad teaching.

GROUPING ACTIVITIES

As data are collected, the observers, and in many cases the teacher
observed, begin to group the communications. For example, if the
teacher asks the students to give synonyms for some words and to draw
sketches to show the meanings of other words, the two types of tasks
are grouped. One possible grouping that emerges has to do with the fact
that one task requires the students to speak and the other one requires
drawing and silence.
A range of groupings of tasks and activities, rather than just one, is
aimed for. Looking at the same exchanges again, we can group the
questions on the basis of who was asked the question. Were students
sitting in particular rows asked to perform some tasks more often than
students in other rows? Were males asked to perform more of some
types of tasks than females? How many tasks did students perform
because the teacher requested them to, either by using names or pointing,
and how many did they volunteer for?
The purpose of the questions and the grouping is not to imply that,
for example, using names is better than pointing or getting volunteers.
The questions are asked so that the same tasks or activities can be
grouped and categorized on the basis of a range of characteristics. When
we look at, say, a dessert menu, we see many characteristics. We have
categories such as high calorie or low calorie, sweet or semisweet, high
or low cholesterol, easy or difficult to prepare, for children or adults,
and so on. By seeing that there are many ways to group the same
communications, we basically are developing a checklist of options and
the multiple characteristics of each.
As such lists and groupings expand, ways to vary our teaching — use
different options — become more and more evident. Each activity, and
the groups it fits in, provides at least one more variable, with a distinct
range of characteristics, that we can manipulate in our own teaching.
Each grouping also reminds us that communications have multiple di-
mensions, a fact that is hidden by one-dimensional terms often used to
judge teaching, such as great pace, nice grammar work, or fine
communications.
Data are also grouped by making lists. For example, one teacher may
give the answer to a question after a student cannot answer, and another
may give a clue ‘rather than the entire answer. Thus, we have two specific
items on a list of feedback possibilities. Clues, too, may be given in
various ways. A teacher may sometimes say, “The word starts with a
g.” Another time the teacher may say, “It has two syllables” or “It is a

187
John F. Fanselow

noun.” One of the insights that come as lists are developed of what is
observed in distinct areas of teaching such as feedback, group work,
and so on is that the range of activities observed in any one class is often
small, but across many teachers the range becomes great.

USING TECHNICAL LANGUAGE

If transcribed communications are merely listed without being grouped

or categorized, the list can become very long, of course. By grouping
different communications on the basis of inferences we make about them,
the value of category labels — technical language — becomes apparent.
Thus, from the descriptive statement “Students gave synonyms,” an
observer and teacher might infer that memory was required but that no
motor control was, as in the case of drawing sketches to show the
meaning of words. Then, looking at communications from our own or
other classes and seeing other activities that require memory alone or
memory plus motor control, subsequent communications can be com-
pared with the first ones in the category. The feedback activities listed,
such as the distinct clues given, can also be compared and grouped.
“Clues given with spoken words” versus “clues given with symbols on
the blackboard” would constitute one way to distinguish clues, for
example.
After a few discussions between observers (visiting teachers) and the
teachers observed (visited teachers), the following general categories
inevitably arise: questions that require students to share previous knowl-
edge versus those that require information just presented; tasks done
individually or in groups; answers for which the teacher is interested in
the form of what is said versus the meaning; questions teachers know
the answers to and those they do not know the answers to; communi-
cations containing experiences of students and those using language for
its own sake; student-to-student communication and teacher-to-student
or student-to-teacher communication. Observers are reminded to de-
velop categories that refer to at least two dimensions of any item in
order to keep in mind the aim of seeing multiple dimensions of any
communication.
The categories for the lists made and the groupings can cover whatever
areas that observers and teachers want, as long as the focus is on the
data: transcripts, sketches, photographs, notes, and actual recordings as
well, when possible. This concentration on the collection and grouping
of data makes it difficult to think of helping or evaluating anyone.
Lortie (1975), among others, has said that one of the critical problems
that teachers face is that they do not have a language to discuss what
they do: “What students [practice teachers] learn about teaching, then,
is intuitive and imitative rather than explicit and analytical” (p. 62)

188
 “Let’s see’: contrasting conversations about teaching
Lortie (p. 73) maintains that the absence of a common technical vocab-
ulary limits the ability to analyze as well as the acuity of the observations
that teachers make.
Giving category names to the groups of communications and lists of
activities provides a technical language, since those noting the similarities
and differences between communications and activities constantly have
to go back and forth between data and names applied to distinct types
of data until they agree on a fit between the terms and the data. Once
teachers and observers have developed some technical terms, coding
systems developed by others can be introduced. The one I introduce
most frequently is my own, called FOCUS (Fanselow 1987b). COLT
(Allen, Frohlich, and Spada 1984), TALOS (Ullmann and Geva 1982),
or any other coding system can also be used (Long 1980).
Starting discussions with a published coding system can make the idea
of categories clear earlier, but there are some disadvantages to their early
introduction. If teachers and observers are unaware of the problem
coding systems were designed to deal with, they may use the systems in
a mechanical way. Starting with published systems can also imply that
the observers and teachers working jointly may not be up to the devel-
opment of categories. On the other hand, going through the steps of
gathering data and grouping data often shows the value of a technical
language. It is also more likely that somebody else’s categories can be
made our own if we develop some of our own along the way. When
those doing the observing develop the categories, knowledge is being
created, rather than buckets being filled (Montessori 1967) or infor-
mation being transferred (Freire 1970: 67).

Interpreting data
Once a range of communications is captured in the form of data and
once activities are listed, grouped, or categorized, interpretations can be
made. It must be remembered, of course, that collecting data and listing
and grouping them according to jointly developed categories or pub-
lished ones are not activities free of interpretation. In initial discussions,
as in initial collection and grouping of data, most participants interpret
data in light of preconceived notions of good teaching. But at this stage,
attention is given to showing how the data and lists of categories already
reflect values, notions, or theories of teaching and learning. If the data
indicate, for example, that the teacher smiled constantly, one participant
may point out that a person noted smiles rather than frowns or shaking
of the head. As the observer who noted the smiles equates smiles with
friendliness, he or she realizes how a belief affected what was observed.
Since it is very common for us all to see, list, and group, as well as
interpret, what we see in light of our preconceived notions about teach-
189
John F. Fanselow

ing, there is no way to prevent such “filtered” data collecting, grouping,

or interpreting. But this effect can be counterbalanced. After one observer
or teacher says that the teacher’s smile showed that the teacher was
friendly, other possible interpretations of a smile can be sought. Alter-
native interpretations emerge from asking what smiles have meant in
our classes or by asking for possible negative meanings of smiles. Usually,
a comment such as “‘Well, I often smile when nervous” comes forth. Or
one will hear, “I smile sometimes when I want students to like me.”
Different data from the segment being discussed might also be noted:
“The smile was fixed as I recall; I frowned a lot too — look at the sketch
you made of me.”
To encourage interpretations that are quite different from the normal
ones that people with similar preconceived notions offer, participants
are taught to ask each other to provide at least one interpretation that
is seemingly outlandish or different in intent from the ones given. If all
the interpretations are positive, possible negative interpretations can be
sought. And if all are negative, positive interpretations can be sought.
In the case of the smile, a negative interpretation might be that smiling
can be used to keep control. Arguments about the superiority of a par-
ticular interpretation are not allowed in the beginning. Rather, the goal
is simply to try to remind the participants that each event we see can
be interpreted in ways different from our usual ways of doing it because
we are each limited by the ideas of reality we have.
Another central lesson that emerges from multiple interpretations of
the same event is that each event has more than one cause and that these
causes need to be specified precisely. A replay of the videotape or a
review of the notes or sketches may reveal some of the exchanges that
took place before the smile, exchanges that were not seen because they
seemed unimportant: the realization that the smile was perhaps the result
of a number of small events that had happened immediately beforehand.
By searching for different interpretations, observers and teachers are
thrown back to the data, lists, and categories, not to seek support for
what they thought when they started, but to seek support for the seem-
ingly outlandish new interpretations. Seeing our own teaching differently
is not going to happen if we are simply looking at other lessons and
interpreting them in the same way we have been looking at lessons and
interpreting them all of our lives.
Data and categories can also be interpreted in relationship to beliefs
about teaching the participants have heard about. For example, partic-
ipants can search for communications that are congruent or incongruent
with Smith’s (1971) admonition that ‘‘information about an error and
aid in performing a task correctly are more helpful than discouraging
comments about an inadequate performance” (p. 229). If a teacher is
heard saying “Why can’t you ever do it right?” the participants might

190
 “Let’s see’’: contrasting conversations about teaching
respond at first by saying that the communication seems incongruent.
Seems is used because “Why can’t you do it right?”, if said humorously
and with a smile, could be congruent with Smith’s advice. Such tenta-
tiveness among the participants is possible because of a self-developed
realization based on engaging in the process of collecting data, listing
specific communications and activities, and relating them to ideas over
and over again in short segments of time.
Isolating beliefs about language teaching that can be related to data
and categories is not difficult. Most articles and books are written to
further beliefs or theories. By relating beliefs from the literature to what
is actually done and observed in specific detail, participants clarify beliefs
and see ways to translate the beliefs into practice. To translate Krashen’s
notion of “comprehensible input” (see Dulay, Burt, and Krashen 1982)
into action, teachers and observers can first examine exchanges in a
range of lessons and then group those that seem comprehensible and
those that seem not to be. Barnes’s (1976) ideas about “exploratory
talk”’ and “finished talk,” about “school knowledge” versus “action
knowledge,” can be understood, seen, and translated into action only
when related to data gathered from lessons.
In addition to relating data and categories to beliefs about learning,
we can relate them to goals. If our goal is to ensure that students can
obtain literal and implied meaning from what they hear and read but
we never ask any inference questions of them, then our practices are
not congruent with our goal.
Relating data to notions in articles and books brings us to another
activity that can be used in the observations and discussions of teaching:
reading. Just as one goal of working in pairs and groups is to provide
multiple perspectives, so reading is used to provide different angles.
When our partners give us a different view of a lesson, we have to take
our usual lenses off, for a few seconds at least, to try to see what they
have seen. Published notions, both of ways of looking at teaching (Bate-
son 1972; Mehan 1979) and ways of teaching (Haskell 1987), show us
different maps of similar territory that require us to try on a range of
different lenses.

Self-observation and the notion of opposites

Transcribing, listing activities, grouping communications, categorizing
and relating these activities to our notions, beliefs, and goals — all show
the great number of different ways of seeing variables, relationships
between them, and consequences, f these activities can be done in pairs
or groups. However, often we cannot find even one person to observe
us or to be observed.
The basis for getting multiple perspectives when we are in a group is
191
John F. Fanselow

simply to juxtapose different individuals’ perceptions. This same idea of

juxtaposing, of using Opposites, can also be used to provide different
perceptions when we are alone. If in our own classes we see the students
always sitting in chairs during speaking lessons, we can ask ourselves
to juxtapose — to give an opposite posture. In this case two opposites
come immediately to mind. Students and teacher alike can sit on the
floor, if the room is carpeted, or everyone can stand. Though much
conversation outside of the classroom takes place when we are standing,
the point of juxtaposing or contrasting opposite situations is to see
situations not seen before, not to argue about the absolute superiority
of a particular format. And although some may object to standing or
to sitting on the floor, by precluding alternatives based on what people
might think, we close off inquiry and tend to limit what occurs to our
preconceived notions of good and bad teaching.
In addition to generating alternatives by looking at aspects of the
classroom, we can compare the communications in a class with those
we see outside of a teaching setting. Using our chair example, we can
compare where we sit in a teaching setting with where we sit in a
nonteaching setting, such as a dormitory room, living room, or park.
Finding opposites to what we normally do in a teaching setting or com-
paring what we do in teaching and nonteaching settings can be extremely
valuable in providing the alternative perspectives a partner would supply
in pair or group work.
The idea of opposites can also help to broaden the range of interpre-
tations. If the first and only interpretation of a teacher’s smile is that
the teacher is happy, and no other interpretations come up in a discus-
sion, an opposite interpretation can be offered: “I have interpreted the
smile as a good communication; now let me consider a smile a bad
communication. Then what could it mean? What are some disadvantages
of smiling?”
In second language acquisition research, learner errors were first at-
tributed to the first language of the learners. Then, some began to explain
the errors on the basis of developmental stages. Different types of errors
were later considered to be caused by different types of tasks used to
elicit the sentences that contained the errors (Ellis 1985). What are these
but opposite interpretations of the same data? Most fields are enriched
by multiple interpretations of the same data, and these multiple inter-
pretations can be generated by considering opposite interpretations to
those usually provided.
Even with the concept of opposites to provide different perspectives,
self-observation is limited. It prevents us from getting distance from our
teaching and seeing our teaching through others. Though transcribing
our own teaching gives us some distance from what we do, since the

192
 “Let’s see”: contrasting conversations about teaching

written record removes our voice, the transcriptions often remain too
much a part of ourselves.

Meanings

Given the aim | advocate for conversations about teaching, labels often
used to classify conversations about teaching, as well as the words in
the conversations, take on new meanings. “Ask questions more rapidly”
is not necessarily a prescription or an offer of help in a conversation in
which exploration and seeing teaching differently are the goals. The
meaning need not be, “Do this because I who visited your class know
more than you do and you need help.” Rather, the meaning can be,
“Try this to see how it alters what has been happening. I am going to
ask questions more rapidly too; perhaps different reasons to ask ques-
tions both slowly and rapidly will become apparent. We can compare
tapes when we have some descriptions of both quick and slow ques-
tions.”” On the other hand, when a visitor in the role of a person in
charge says, ““You might try a slower pace,” though the modal might is
used, the meaning can be a “helpful” prescription. The message can
mean, “I know, and I want you to do what I say.”” Exploration can be
inhibited or completely stopped because the underlying intention of the
words can be to show who is in charge.
Even a comment such as “The quick questions were great” can be
seen as a description rather than as a judgment if the aim is exploratory.
In such a context, the great could refer to the execution of the direction
rather than to the technique itself.
Words in our conversations, to be judgments, must imply that the
speaker or hearer is attributing good or bad, superiority or inferiority,
to a practice. If “good lesson” is said or heard to imply that you or a
teacher you visited did what was prescribed — what the speaker or hearer
considers to be the right way to do it — then a judgment is probably
being made in our communication. The words must be heard in rela-
tionship to the aim of our conversation and the role of those having the
conversation. In the conversations I advocate, judgments are avoided
because they tend to close off exploration. They tend to end, rather than
continue, a process.
Some label an emphasis on data and description objective. | avoid
both the terms objective and subjective. The meaning of a lot in
“You asked a lot of questions” is not subjective because of a lot. Nor
are 42 and 2 objective in “You asked 42 questions in 2 minutes.”
Both statements can be judgments or descriptions, depending greatly
on what the speaker’s and hearer’s aim is and the role each is assum-

193
John F. Fanselow

ing. Again, if the words are used to see differently, as a means to ex-
plore — suggesting the importance of comparing the asking of 42
questions in 2 minutes with 22 in 2 minutes or a few with a lot —
then they are both simply descriptive. If the words are used because
the speaker or listener — the visited or visiting teacher — is against fre-
quent questions or feels that asking a lot of questions is not the thing
to do, both groups of words are likely to be judgments. Both can be
implied, helpful prescriptions to use fewer questions if they come
from, or are addressed to, a teacher who believes “good” teachers do
not ask frequent questions.
There is a reason that explanations or proof to support categories or
interpretations have not been mentioned. Observers do not request ex-
planations like ‘““Why did you smile?” And teachers do not give such
explanations: “I smiled because I thought at that moment the class
needed reassurance.” These exchanges tend to lead to arguments and
can be seen as veiled attempts to support or strengthen the authority of
one of the participants. In the model presented here, explanations are
replaced by what a person did; what the characteristics were of what
was done; how these related to beliefs, theories, or goals; and multiple —
interpretations of the data and groupings and the relationships among
these.
Trying to see how the same words that for so long meant one thing
can begin to mean something else is, of course, not something accom-
plished only by going through a series of steps. Nor indeed is seeing
differently — exploration — a point to reach, but rather a tendency, a
movement toward.
This tendency, this movement toward, as well as the tendency back
toward the usual conversations, is noted by recording the discussions
among teachers and observers — visited and visiting teachers. The ex-
changes in the discussions are dealt with in the same way as exchanges
from classes: Short transcriptions are made, communications are
grouped and coded, and multiple interpretations are made. They are
related to the beliefs upon which this model rests - the trust that can
come from joint effort without external evaluation; exploration; multiple
perspectives; multiple causation; the idea that much of what we do in
classes, just as outside the classroom, is beyond our awareness; and the
notion that helping another from a superior position can lead to re-
sentment and dependence.
The discussions of the observations often show confusion, struggles
to group and categorize data. They also contain examples of simple
causation (“The repetition of the sentence made them learn it’), pre-
scriptions (“You should never put the directions up on the board
when they are in their books’), and all the other normal types of
conversations we usually have about teaching. But now and then the
194
 “Let’s see”: contrasting conversations about teaching
teaching act is discussed in a way that is congruent with the beliefs of
this model.

Conclusion

Judgments and predictable prescriptions are not limited to conversations

about teaching. In a critique of Vincent Canby’s movie reviews, Carney
(1986) reminds us that using words like charming, sincere, buoyant,
funny, and clever to review films “amounts to an alarming aesthetic”
(p. 30). He goes on:
One is accustomed to seeing invocations of charms, etc., as measures of value
...in ads for Calvin Klein, Christian Dior, Clinique, and Club Med. But
these are hardly the supreme values that one would expect in a serious
ceflection on art... They are, indeed, precisely the values such a reflection
should question. (p. 30)
If we discuss teaching with words implying judgments like exciting,
boring, flowed smoothly — all variations of good and bad — we limit our
perceptions in the same way that such one-dimensional, uncritical words
limit our perceptions of film and other forms of art.
The usual conversations, full of prescriptive clichés designed to help
or evaluate, no doubt provide more certainty than conversations whose
purpose is to see our own and others’ teaching differently and to explore
reality. In fact, Canby’s buoyant, funny, and clever might be welcome
in many conversations about teaching. Conversations between Socrates
and others in the Socratic dialogues could not be described in this way!
These characters reflect more complexity in their conversations — move-
ment from strongly held opinion to floundering uncertainty to a confused
not knowing. Similar stages occur in conversations aimed at seeing teach-
ing differently — exploring. An authentic quest for learning and meaning
requires that these stages take place. Neat, pat answers to complex
problems were not a part of the Socratic dialogues, nor are they a part
of conversations exploring teaching. As Abbs (1986) reminds us in a
discussion of Socrates:
To adopt the Socratic view of education would be to reaffirm that education
in our culture is primarily concerned with critical reflection... with sustained
inquiry into the various forms of meaning, with the lifelong process... that
goes well beyond the enclosing pressures of the ego and the ephemeral
clamourings of party politics. (p. 21)
To observe others and ourselves with the purpose of helping implies
not only that we know that one set of practices is consistently superior
to another, but that we know what needs to be done in each distinct
setting. It also implies that there is a simple cause-effect relationship
195
John F. Fanselow

between a communication and a result: “Smile and the class will be

relaxed”; “Speak slowly and the class will understand.” To help another
or ourselves means we know what should be done and what practices
produce what results. If experience in classes has taught us nothing else,
we have learned that each day we and our students are different as a
result of ongoing experiences and that practices that seemed to have
particular consequences one day have different ones another day.
To help means we have something to give another, a product to sell.
The whole thrust of the point of view and activities presented here is
toward the value of process, not product, and toward the construction
of our own knowledge, not the acceptance of the knowledge of others
in some type of package, as a product. Freire’s (1970: 59) use of banking
as a metaphor for education that stresses product highlights the aim of
many conversations about lessons we observe: the passing of information
from one person to another. As Mehan (1979) says:
In sum, providing people with prearranged packages of information is
oppressive, for it fails to treat people as responsible for their own lives.
Furthermore, these imposed programs often have little to do with the
participants’ own preoccupations and practical circumstances. Providing
people with ways of looking, on the other hand, rerninds the participants
that they are capable of acting on the world, and that these actions can
transform the world. (pp. 206—7)

The model for visiting teachers presented here, like the ideas of Mehan
and Freire, all come together in Bronowski’s (1956) discussion of the
purposes of art and science. For the words science and works of art in
the following quotation, one might consider substituting the words ob-
servation and lessons and conversations about lessons, respectively.

The discoveries of science, the works of art are explorations — more, are
explosions — of a hidden likeness... When a simile takes us aback and
persuades us together, when we find a juxtaposition in a picture both odd
and intriguing, when a theory is at once fresh and convincing, we do not
merely nod over someone else’s work. We re-enact the creative act, and we
ourselves make the discovery again. At bottom, there is no unifying likeness
there until we have seized it, we too have made it for ourselves. (p. 19)

When we collect and interpret data from observations and reconstruct

our teaching, we are, of course, reinventing the wheel. But why not?
Why deny others or ourselves this pleasure? By providing pat prescrip-
tions to help, we not only deny others or ourselves the excitement of
constructing knowledge, we also imply that we ourselves or those we
work with cannot construct knowledge. Moreover, helping can stop
exploration. Again, Bronowski’s (1956) comments are appropriate. To

196
 “Let’s see”: contrasting conversations about teaching

him, the process of exploration is the “habit of truth”: “In science and
in art and in self-knowledge we explore and move constantly by turning
to the world of sense to ask, Is this so? This is the habit of truth, always
minute yet always urgent” (p. 43).

197
Questions and tasks
*

Chapter 10 (Gebhard)

1. Compare the six models of supervision presented by Gebhard with

Freeman’s (Chapter 7) three options for intervention in practice teaching.
What points of similarity and difference can you find?

2. List the roles and functions that you feel supervisory teachers play
in your Own situation.

3. Summarize Gebhard’s chapter by completing the following table:

Distinctive
features Strengths Weaknesses
Directive

Alternative
Collaborative
Nondirective
Creative

4. Make a list of all the practical suggestions made by Gebhard that

you might suggest to teachers being supervised or that you might ex-
periment with in your own situation.

Chapter 11 (Gaies and Bowers)

5. What is the distinction drawn by Gaies and Bowers between the
training and educative functions of clinical supervision? Do you agree
with their characterization?

6. What effects do you think that the curriculum changes in Slovenia

would have on the skills and knowledge required by teachers? What
implications does this have for supervisors?

198
 Questions and tasks
7. How are the five principles underlying the preparation of supervisors
realized at the University of Cairo?

Chapter 12 (Fanselow)

8. What reservations does Fanselow have about the supervisor as

“helper” or “evaluator”?

9. Scan Fanselow’s chapter and make a list of all the ways in which
classroom data can be used by supervisors.

10. Select a segment from a classroom video (or, alternatively, use a

live lesson) and carry out Fanselow’s suggestions on grouping and cat-
egorizing activities. What insights does this yield? How useful do you
think these techniques might be for clinical supervision?

11. What suggestions does Fanselow make that might help student
teachers link theory and practice?

General

12. What suggestions are made in the three chapters in this section for
using classroom data in clinical supervision?

199
 Eee ortn, aehaitasar) aN

; Re each beam
; Soni ta

aa ae a = ms

ab woerwrsyue ads. toda svi wore ned. ascab Barts.

A rately. a‘wo!
é
‘
ve Pats ah ee
et Pia

Ese ca esPOI 3 os

es ne
: Pk seas
7, : =? ae tlpe ie a yy 4 ? i :
: ¥ a7 ti BY Pua be SALEM
iv?
get3thkA4) rein
payWi Fay Sub+ g len siwid te
** a
ae “Nal seria tsaintio tat 92 wt gien wsipetdoahs
=: ye Pa digine-by oatiplenng. Wee kloan
Hise ibaay mrad Sh Rae: tees
aera ™ ovener sr aeler i *
; i
i a |

e is

esses ea 0 xt — om aaa
|; wo BSS he arei Fara ssequa:
S571 ee
_ eae i eee een ote :
a eae | Te Teed
Ae Se appar eee Racca aah om toca
i th A ne teatsie
“etait git
pigeons oat heen : a wh Nota ae car ta.

ee ee aad made
free Prey tespial #ie ee i eres eine: pe Bi wes
a : avi iret:riavewed i: pt ee stowssee. Ps ss :

os r19 eee ; ay A i ¥ ay ak : am 7

“Chapter "(Gates-ond Bion= Nee

a : ‘3 rs
Mi igaD7

rae
ae artsat is
s tite “sh gest
a Gaia

1 i
Part V_ Self-observation in
teacher development

The unifying theme in this section is that of the teacher as self-observer.

Bartlett (Chapter 13) articulates a view of reflective teaching. Proponents
of reflective teaching suggest that experience alone is insufficient for
professional growth, and that experience coupled with reflection is a
much more powerful impetus for development. Related to the notion of
reflection is the concept of criticism. The critically reflective teacher is one
who moves beyond the search for instructional techniques alone (asking
“chow to” questions) to a concern for ‘“‘what”’ and “‘why” questions. The
latter questions, it is suggested, give teachers a greater power over their
teaching. Bartlett provides a number of suggestions for teachers who wish
to become more critically reflective about themselves as teachers.
In the next chapter Bailey presents the use of diaries and journals in
teacher education programs. Diaries have been well established in the
literature as a research tool, and here their use is extended to the field
of teacher development. Also included is an extended review of the
literature on diary studies. Bailey then presents a five-step procedure for
carrying out a study, and makes a number of practical suggestions to
guide the potential diarist.
The final chapter in this section also deals with the use of journals in
teacher training, although from a somewhat different perspective. Porter
et al. make a case for teachers-in-preparation to keep a journal on the
courses and seminars that form the formal part of their graduate training.
The chapter is motivated by three educational principles. The first of
these relates to the connection between writing and learning in which
writing acts as a stimulus to the generation and exploration of ideas.
Second, writing is seen as a social as well as a cognitive activity. Third,
in keeping with communicative language teaching, journal writing stim-
ulates greater learner involvement in the learning process. The chapter
is illustrated with extracts from the journals of two student teachers and
the written responses given to the student teachers by the instructors.
All three chapters see self-monitoring and self-evaluation as key com-
ponents in teacher preparation programs, for they aim to take partici-
pants beyond training to education. Techniques are described that enable
teachers-in-preparation to document and submit to critical scrutiny their
teaching practices and the assumptions and beliefs upon which these
practices are based.
201
13 Teacher development through
reflective teaching
Leo Bartlett

Since the early eighties a number of approaches to teacher development

have been proposed and implemented in classrooms. These approaches
include the teacher-as-researcher, action research, clinical supervision,
and the critical pedagogy perspective, among others. Another form of
inquiry intended to help teachers improve their practice is reflective
teaching. It was popularized by Cruickshank (Cruickshank and Apple-
gate 1981; Cruickshank et al. 1981) and Zeichner (Zeichner 1981-2;
Zeichner and Teitlebaum 1982; Zeichner 1983). They have reported on
projects attempting to assist both preservice and experienced teachers
to teach ‘reflectively’.
Cruickshank and Zeichner define the term reflective teaching differ-
ently. Cruickshank defines reflective teaching as the teacher’s thinking
about what happens in classroom lessons, and thinking about alter-
native means of achieving goals or aims; he sees it as a means to pro-
vide students with ‘an opportunity to consider the teaching event
thoughtfully, analytically and objectively’ (Cruickshank and Apple-
gate 1981: 4). The purpose of reflective teaching is to engender good
habits of thought (Cruickshank 1984). The focus is on teaching as a
craft or apprenticeship. Teaching is defined in the narrow sense inas-
much as what happens in the classroom is decided by people and
events inside the classroom alone. Reflection is reduced to the psy-
chologistic process of thinking. According to this mode of thinking
and defining reflection, the development of teaching techniques is re-
garded as the most important means for helping teachers to improve
their practice.
Zeichner and Liston (1985) propose a quite different perspective.
They argue, ‘A reflective teacher is defined in this literature as one
who assesses the origins, purposes and consequences of his or her
work at all levels’. Work at different levels refers to Van Manen’s
(1977) three levels of reflectivity. The first of these levels corresponds
broadly to Cruickshank’s conception of reflective teaching. But Zei-
chner and Liston (1985) are more interested in what might be called
the practical and critical level of reflectivity or orientation to inquiry
into teaching (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). His leaning is toward the
critical when he says that a program of reflective teaching is for stu-
dents who

202
 Teacher development through reflective teaching
are willing and able to reflect on the origins, purposes, and consequences of
their actions, as well as the material and ideological constraints and
encouragements embedded in the classroom, school, and societal contexts in
which they live. These goals are directed toward enabling teachers to develop
the pedagogical habits and skills necessary for self directed growth and
toward preparing them, individually and collectively, to participate as full
partners in their making of educational policies. (p. 4)

In this chapter I want to discuss reflective teaching as a means of

improving classroom practice. The first section looks at the idea of
reflective teaching which is aligned with Zeichner’s conception. In the
next section, a process for becoming reflective is proposed using ex-
amples from second language teaching. The last section considers ques-
tions teachers might ask of themselves in becoming more reflective
teachers.

Thinking about reflective teaching

To grasp what it means to be a reflective teacher, we need to consider

what it means to be a ‘teacher’ and what the word reflection implies.
Both of these concepts have a large literature.

The idea of teaching

When we teach language we engage in certain actions. Often we read
about improving classroom teacher behaviours; but behaviours are dif-
ferent from actions. Identifying an action involves knowing its intended
purpose. For example, when an athlete raises a fist in triumph, no one
would equate this action with that of a Nazi salute. Hence, one important
consequence is that actions are intentional and are to be understood in
the social context of their occurrence.
Intentional actions are not guided by intention conceived as some kind
of pure mental concept in the head of the actor. A teacher’s actions are
influenced by intentions in the social settings and by the beliefs and
chains of reasoning that are held before and after the occurrence of the
action. The point in all this is that if we want to improve our teaching
through reflective inquiry, we must accept that it does not involve some
modification of behaviour by externally imposed directions or require-
ments, but that it requires deliberation and analysis of our ideas about
teaching as a form of action based on our changed understandings.
The linking of what we think (intend) and what we do (act) applies
to ourselves as individual teachers. But teaching is much more than this.
Teaching is essentially an interactive process among a group of people
203
Leo Bartlett

learning in a social setting usually described as ‘the classroom’. Inter-

action has been defined by Simpson and Galbo (1986) as
all manner of behaviour in which individuals and groups act upon each
other. The essential characteristic is reciprocity in actions and responses in an
infinite variety of relationships; verbal and non-verbal, conscious and
unconscious, enduring and casual. Interaction is seen as a continually
emerging process, as communication in its inclusive sense. (p. 38)

Implicit in this description of teaching as an interactive process is the

need to develop shared understandings in a community of knowledge
users and developers. Gore (1987) describes this in the following terms:
The sharing of experience in reflective teaching potentially has two outcomes.
First, students may come to value their practical knowledge instead of
viewing it as inferior to the scientific knowledge produced by researchers [of
teaching]... A second possible outcome of the shared experiences provided
by reflective teaching is strong collegiality. (p. 37)
We can enlarge the idea of collegiality and teaching to something more
than the events that occur inside the classroom. The term teacher can
be redefined as someone who engages learners, who seeks to engage
each person wholly — mind, sense of self, range of interests and inter-
actions with other people in learning (Duckworth 1986). Teaching be-
comes pedagogy when teachers engage learners in events inside and
outside the classroom. Furthermore, teaching as pedagogy becomes a
quest, a research endeavour which can be improved best through ad-
dressing both everyday experiences and the societal events that influence
them.

The idea of reflection

Improvement of teaching may be achieved through reflection. Reflection
is more than ‘thinking’ and focuses on the day-to-day classroom teaching
of the individual teacher as well as the institutional structures in which
teacher and students work. The description by Kemmis (1986) best
summarizes the meaning of reflection:
Reflection is not just an individual, psychological process. It is an action
oriented, historically-embedded, social and political frame, to locate oneself
in the history of a situation, to participate in a social activity, and to take
sides on issues. Moreover the material on which reflection works is given to
us socially and historically; through reflection and the action which it
informs, we may transform the social relations which characterise our work
and our working situation. (p. 5)
Reflection therefore has a double meaning. It involves the relationship
between an individual’s thought and action and the relationship be-
204
 Teacher development through reflective teaching

tween an individual teacher and his or her membership in a larger col-

lective called society. The first relationship involves the subjective
meanings in teachers’ heads. The second relationship explores con-
sciously the relationship (which may be a part of unconscious knowl-
edge) between individual teaching actions and the purposes of education
in society. This dual meaning of reflection may be described as ‘critical
critical’.

Becoming a critically reflective teacher

Becoming critical means that as teachers we have to transcend the tech-
nicalities of teaching and think beyond the need to improve our instruc-
tional techniques. This effectively means we have to move away from
the ‘how to’ questions, which have a limited utilitarian value, to the
‘what’ and ‘why’ questions, which regard instructional and managerial
techniques not as ends in themselves but as a part of broader educational
purposes. Hence we need to locate teaching in its broader cultural and
social context. An analogy might be drawn from the communicative use
of language. In a narrow, immediate sense, language is a medium of
communication in the classroom, something the adult immigrant, for
example, has to learn in order to survive as a citizen in a new country.
In the broader sense, however, language broadcasts the new culture into
which the immigrant enters, and perhaps redefines the immigrant’s cul-
ture of origin.
Asking ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions gives us a certain power over our
teaching. We could claim that the degree of autonomy and responsibility
we have in our work as teachers is determined by the level of control
that we can exercise over our actions. In reflecting on ‘what’ and ‘why’
questions, we begin to exercise control and open up the possibility of
transforming our everyday classroom life. The process of control is called
critical reflective teaching.
It should be noted that the word critical does not mean ‘criticising’
or being negative; it refers to the stance of enabling us as teachers to
see our actions in relation to the historical, social, and cultural context
in which our teaching is actually embedded. Becoming a critically re-
flective teacher is intended to allow us to develop ourselves individually
and collectively; to deal with contemporary events and structures (for
example, the attitudes of others or the bureaucratic thinking of admin-
istrators) and not to take these structures for granted.
Reflective teaching as a form of critical inquiry is located in a socially
critical orientation to teaching. Apple (1975) describes this orientation
in the following way:
It requires a painful process of radically examining current positions and
asking pointed questions about the relationship that exists between these
205
Leo Bartlett

positions and the social structures from which they arise. It also necessitates
a serious in-depth search for alternatives to those almost unconscious lenses
we employ and an ability to cope with an ambiguous situation for which
answers can now be only dimly seen and will not be easy to come by. (p.
127)

Becoming a critically reflective teacher within this orientation therefore

involves the realisation that as second language teachers, we are both
the producers and creators of our own history. In practical terms this
means we shall engage in systematic and social forms of inquiry that
examine the origin and consequences of everyday teaching so that we
come to see the factors that impede change and thus improvement.
We can be assisted in the process of becoming critically reflective by
asking ourselves a number of general ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions. They
might include:
What counts as knowledge in second language teaching?
How is knowledge in language teaching organized?
How is what counts as knowledge transmitted? How is access to such
knowledge determined?
What kind of multicultural society or cultural system uses this knowledge
legitimately?
Whose interests are being served by the production and legitimation of
this knowledge?
Some other, more specific questions might include:
What caused me to want to become a second language teacher?
Do these reasons still exist for me now?
What does it mean to be a teacher?
Is the teacher I am the person I am?
Where did the ideas I embody in second language teaching come from
historically?
How did I come to appropriate them?
Why do I continue to endorse them now in my teaching?
Whose interests do these ideas serve?
Who has power in my classroom and how is it expressed?
How do power relationships in my classroom influence my interactions
with students?
How might I teach differently?
What is the natureof knowledge that guides my teaching of content?
Who creates this knowledge?
How did this knowledge emerge during the evolution of teaching?
Whose interests does this knowledge about language teaching serve?
How do/ can I personally work to uncover the contradictions in my
teaching?

206
 Teacher development through reflective teaching

How does what I do affect the opportunities in life of students?

What connections do I make with organisations outside the school or
centre to demonstrate my active role in society?
Do I wish to uncover the ‘hidden curriculum’ — the inconsistencies — in
my teaching?
These questions need to be systematised into a set of procedures to help
us to become critically reflective teachers.

A process for reflection

Several processes of inquiry, each driven by its own theoretical under-

standing of reflection, have been proposed. However, most follow the
ideas first formulated by Dewey (1933) when he said in his book How
We Think that it was necessary
first that the pupil have a genuine situation of experience — that there be a
continuous activity in which he is interested for its own sake; secondly, that
a genuine problem develop with this situation as a stimulus to thought; third,
that he possess the information and make the observations needed to deal
with it; fourth, that suggested solutions occur to him which he shall be
responsible for developing in an orderly way; fifth, that he have opportunity
and occasion to test his ideas by application to make the meaning clear and
to discover for himself their validity. (p. 174)

Dewey’s statement reinforces the need to consider a number of prin-

ciples that guide a process by which teachers can become reflective. They
are summarised briefly here:
1. The issue upon which the teacher reflects must occur in the social |
context where teaching occurs.
2. The teacher must be interested in the problem to be resolved.
3. The issue must be ‘owned’ by the teacher — that is, derived from
his or her practice.
4. Reflection on the issue involves problem solving from the teaching
situation in which the teacher is located. |
5. Ownership of the identified issue and its solution is vested in the
teacher.
6. Systematic procedures are necessary.
7. Information (observations) about the issue must be derived from
the teacher’s experience of teaching.
8. The teacher’s ideas need to be tested through the practice of
teaching.
9, Ideas about teaching, once tested through practice, must lead to
some course of action. There is a tension between idea and action
207
Leo Bartlett

TABLE I. CYCLES OF REFLECTION WITHIN DIFFERENT REFLECTIVE TEACHING

PROGRAMS

Reflective Immediately
teaching after
program Before lesson lesson Later after lesson
Cruickshank |PREPARE = REFLECT
Peer teaching group — shared:
Any stage of verbal
teacher
education
Zeichner PLAN @ PREPARE@ REFLECT = REFLECT
School self or group:
teaching supervisor: verbal
Final year of verbal or
teacher written
education
Gore PLAN @ PREPARE@ REFLECT = REFLECT@ REFLECT
Peer teaching group — shared: | self: | self or
First semester verbal written | group:
of teacher critique | written in
education | journal or
| verbal
|

Source: Gore and Bartlett (1987).

which is reflexive; once it is tested the action rebounds back on the

idea which informed it.
10. Hence, reflexive action may be transformed into new understandings
and redefined practice in teaching.

These statements indicate that not only must reflective teaching be

reflexive but also that there is a cycle of activity in the process. Table 1
shows that the three programs cited in this chapter all have cycles of
reflection before, during, and after lessons in which the teacher engages
in reflective teaching.
These cycles of activity could be redefined as containing the five ele-
ments of mapping, informing, contesting, appraising, and acting. They
are represented in Figure 1. It is important to understand that all elements
constitute. the process of reflective teaching, but the elements are not
linear or sequential. That is, in reflecting on your teaching you may ‘pass
through’ the cycle several times (hence the process becomes reflexive);
one element is not always or necessarily followed by the next element
208
 Teacher development through reflective teaching

Mapping

Acting Informing

Appraising Contesting

Figure 1 The elements of a cycle for the process of reflective teach-

ing. (Adapted from McTaggert and Kemmis 1983; Smyth 1987.)

in the cycle; and an element may be omitted in moving through the

cycle, especially when different courses of action are adopted.
Let us consider each element or phase separately.

Mapping

‘WHAT DOIDO AS A TEACHER?’

Mapping involves observation and the collection of evidence about our

own teaching. Probably the best means of observation is to record our
practice. This may be done by audio or visual means (tape-recording a
lesson, using photography, etc.), but the best means would seem to
involve some form of writing. In writing, we begin not only to observe,
but we take the first step in reflecting on and about our practice.
The emphasis here is on our individual observations. One of the better
known ways of recording is to keep a diary or journal. Kathleen Bailey
in this volume (Chapter 14) provides many excellent ideas and practical
suggestions about diaries as potential tools for teacher training in second
language teaching. Holly (1984) and Tripp (1987) also describe in some
detail how to start and what to do in keeping a journal which may be
descriptive or thoughtfully analytical about teaching. The emphasis in
this phase of reflection however is on description. Hence, the journal is
more like a ship’s log, where what happened and who is involved form
the main part of the record.
Our writing will be about our routine and conscious actions in the
classroom; conversations with pupils; critical incidents in a lesson; our
personal lives as teachers; our beliefs about teaching; events outside the
209
Leo Bartlett

classroom that we think influence our teaching; our views about lan-
guage teaching and learning. The description of our particular orien-
tation or approach to language teaching is all-important in this phase
of observation and information gathering. Some of the specific questions
listed earlier (for example, ‘Is the teacher I am the person I am?’) are
relevant.
Some important points seem worthy of mention in writing for reflec-
tion. First, focus on a specific teaching problem which can be improved.
Keep the problem ‘small’; that is, keep your observations focused on a
particular aspect of teaching. If you are addressing the problem of ques-
tioning, for example, see if you can identify one aspect of the topic
(delivery, your response to students, the number of questions you ask
relative to the number that students are allowed to ask). Write in your
own language of everyday experience, voicing your descriptions and
concerns freely. Your record may be brief or lengthy depending on time
available and your inclination to write. Begin writing immediately after
teaching a lesson or sequence of lessons. The aim is to raise your con-
sciousness of your teaching through writing: This is the first step to
‘sussing out’ the meaning behind your ideas.

Informing

“WHAT IS THE MEANING OF MY TEACHING?’

‘WHAT DID I INTEND?’

Having mapped our images and ideas about our teaching, about our-
selves, about the content of our teaching, and about other persons inside
and outside the classroom whom we think influence our teaching, we
turn to look for meaning behind the maps. This phase, like others in
the cycle, cannot be neatly separated from other phases; but by con-
sciously focusing on it, we make sure we exhaust the possibilities and
opportunities for reflecting.
In effect, we revisit our first record — our maps — add to them, and
make meaning of them. Informing may occur after a teaching sequence
or lesson. It may be accomplished by the individual teacher or in dis-
cussion with others. Hence, the element of mapping may be meant to
be as much the basis for shared discussion and understanding of the
meaning of teaching for our colleagues and students as much as it is for
the individual self.
The element of sharing or collaboration with colleagues offers the
possibility of extending one’s insights about oneself as teacher to oneself
as an individual member of a larger community. This supports the idea
of teaching as interaction: the idea that teaching cannot be separated
210
 Teacher development through reflective teaching

from one’s students, one’s culture, one’s expectations about life, and
how one wants to participate in society.
It is possible now to distinguish between teaching routine and con-
scious teaching actions and unmask the principles behind them. Ques-
tions such as ‘Who defines knowledge about our teaching?’ appear
relevant. For example, if we assume we select the subject-matter content
of teaching, what is the basis of our selection? If there are curriculum
guidelines, how is our selection contingent upon them? Are our purposes
in selecting content to develop a working citizen or an educated citizen
or a person actively participating in changing society?
This phase in reflective teaching begins the search for principles that
underlie our teaching, the search for reasons which are the basis for our
theory of teaching. It also begins the first steps toward identifying our
uncertainty about our taken-for-granted and most preciously held ideas
about our teaching and its broader purposes. Certainty is embedded in
our thinking, as it is for many people in our contemporary society. Our
search is not for the correct or most certain solution, but for the best
possible solution based on informed choice.

Contesting

‘HOW DID I COME TO BE THIS WAY?’

‘HOW WAS IT POSSIBLE FOR MY PRESENT VIEW OF TEACHING

(WITH REASONS) TO HAVE EMERGED?’

This phase involves contesting our ideas and the structures that hold
them in place. This is most effectively achieved through sharing with
our colleagues (including teachers, students, parents, and community
members) our understandings and reasons we have for teaching in par-
ticular ways.
Contesting ideas and reasons for teaching is meant to uncover our
assumptive worlds. As we become experienced teachers we make our
histories, which contain assumptions about best ways of teaching.
Should we focus on the individual student, for example? What assump-
tions do we make when we regard the individual as more important
than the class group? What does it mean for the relationships between
ourselves and our students? the nature of learning? assessment of learn-
ing? Questioning our assumptive worlds may mean dislodging “‘unques-
tioned’ ideas about our teaching. In mapping and informing, we
considered our espoused theories about teaching. In contestation, we
confront and perhaps begin to dislodge the complex system of reasons
(theory) for our teaching actions.
211
Leo Bartlett

Contestation involves a search for inconsistencies and contradictions

in what we do and how we think. A contradiction exists when our
reasons for an action or the premises on which a course of teaching
action is founded cannot all be realized simultaneously. Hence, if we
pursue one course of action or premise we must repress another: by
accepting one, we reject another. If we believe that a given piece of
behaviour will have positive consequences for some and negative con-
sequences for others, then we hold an interdependent or dialectical view
of action or behaviour. We might illustrate this by considering the issue
of teacher talk. If we believe that the amount of talking we as teachers
do does not disadvantage others, we hold an independent view of class-
room speech. If, however, we believe that teacher talk advantages us
while disadvantaging our students, we hold an interdependent or dia-
lectical view of classroom speech.
Another way to describe this example is in terms of individualistic or
reciprocal power relationships: ‘Who has the power in my classroom?’
‘How is it expressed?’ ‘How do power relationships in the classroom
influence my interactions with students?’ ‘How does what I do benefit
students?’ ‘What disadvantages may result?’ If we accept that every
teaching action has both advantages and disadvantages for our students,
we might then ask whose interests are being served. Quite often our
teaching may appear to be in the best interests of students when in fact
it is ourselves or the institution which has most to gain.
There are varying levels of contradiction in our teaching. Some are
quite visible; others are less visible. Quite often our wish to improve
our teaching may be distorted by visible institutional requirements; for
example, the requirement to demonstrate improved grammatical or com-
municative competence in student learning as defined by the syllabus.
Not to demonstrate improvement in such competencies may be to dem-
onstrate our professional inadequacy to colleagues or administrators
whose views about the purposes of second language teaching may be
quite different from ours. Our interpretation of syllabus requirements
as regards assessment can also become a complex mix of desires to
improve our teaching, to enhance our professional status, to ensure
student gains in learning, and to provide appropriate opportunities for
students to learn. There are visible and invisible agendas each with their
own contradictions in our teaching.

Appraisal

‘HOW MIGHT I TEACH DIFFERENTLY?’

Contestation of teaching practice logically leads to a search for alter-

native courses of action. Appraisal begins to link the thinking dimension

212
 Teacher development through reflective teaching

of reflection with the search for teaching in ways consistent with our
new understanding. A handy way of appraising is to ask the question
‘What would be the consequences to learning if I changed... 2’ Hence,
with regard to measuring proficiency, we might understand whose in-
terests are being served in assessment of student learning if we more
frequently negotiate what will be learned; or we might negotiate the
criteria upon which students will be assessed. Most importantly, we
might ask ourselves whether criteria for making assessments are made
public for students; and whether we attempt to make public our as-
sessments against these criteria. When we search for more participatory
styles of goal-based or democratic assessment procedures, we are ap-
praising possible courses of action.

Acting

“WHAT AND HOW SHALL I NOW TEACH?’

Paulo Freire (1972) has proposed that reflection without action is ver-
balism: action without reflection is activism — doing things for their own
sake. Acting is listed here chronologically as the last phase in the process
leading to reflective teaching, but it is not the final phase. There is a
continuing dialectical relationship among the preceding phases and the
idea of acting out new ideas about our teaching. We ‘rearrange’ our
teaching practice after mapping what we do, unearthing the reasons and
assumptions for these actions, subjecting these reasons to critical scru-
tiny, appraising alternative courses of action, and then acting. Although
there is nothing magical or imperative about this cycle, it offers a sys-
tematic approach to the process of making committed choices as the
basis of ‘good’ teaching.

Conclusion

Reflective teaching, like most teacher-based forms of self-inquiry, is not

an easy process. It involves a major shift in emphasis in our thinking
and acting. Becoming reflective forces us to adopt a critical attitude to
ourselves as individual second language teachers — to challenge our
espoused personal beliefs about teaching. Becoming reflective through
testing our practice systematically also challenges us to think about the
influence we directly or indirectly exert on the formation of society in
our role as teachers. How we present language through the curriculum
and through our teaching has profound cumulative effects on the way
our community and wider society changes. Becoming reflective also ex-
tends beyond ourselves, making possible a similar form of self-inquiry
213
Leo Bartlett

in students. It may allow them to break the chains of alienation imposed

on them not only by the routine of everyday experience but also by the
oppressive ignorance of language in the society into which they have
been inducted. Students are no longer seen as receptacles of prepackaged
knowledge but are given the language of possibility to challenge the very
constructs which may relegate them to the status of mere objects in a
‘new’ culture. For teachers of students of diverse ethnic backgrounds,
becoming a reflective teacher offers a very real challenge.

214
14 The use of diary studies in teacher
education programs
Kathleen M. Bailey

A diary study is a first-person account of a language learning or teaching

experience, documented through regular, candid entries in a personal jour-
nal and then analyzed for recurring patterns or salient events. Throughout
this chapter I will use the labels diary and journal interchangeably. However,
here the term diary study has a meaning that is intentionally different from
its use in some of the early case studies in the second language acquisition
research literature (e.g., in the anthology edited by Hatch 1978), where
adults kept written records of child second language learners’ linguistic out-
put. In contrast, here the term emphasizes first-person authorship.
As a research genre, diary studies are part of a growing body of
literature on classroom research (Allwright 1983; Gaies 1983; Long
1983; van Lier 1984, 1988; Bailey 1985; Chaudron 1988; Allwright
and Bailey 1990). They are examples of participant observation that fall
within the “anthropological approach” to classroom research (Long
1983: 18) in the hermeneutic (interpretive) tradition (Ochsner 1979).
My concern here, however, is not so much with diary studies as a mode
of research but rather as potential tools for teacher preparation. (See
Blass and Pike 1981 for a similar approach.)
The first purpose of this chapter, then, is to briefly review some of
the insights gained by teachers and teachers-in-preparation who kept
language teaching diaries and analyzed the results. Second, | will offer
some guidelines for teachers-in-preparation who would like to keep
teaching journals, and to teacher educators who are considering sug-
gesting this option to their students.

Literature review

To date, diary studies in language research and pedagogy have generally

taken one of three broad focuses. They have been used to document (1)
language learning experiences, (2) student teachers’ reactions to aca-
demic courses, and (3) language teaching experiences.

Language learning diaries

Some teachers-in-preparation and experienced professional educators
have kept journals of their experiences as language learners. Although
2S
Kathleen M. Bailey

most of the resulting diary studies are lengthy, unpublished manu-

scripts, a few have found their way into accessible volumes in psy-
chology and applied linguistics (see, for example, Moore 1977;
Schumann and Schumann 1977; Bailey 1980, 1983; Schumann 1980;
Danielson 1981; and Schmidt and Frota 1986). The actual topics of
these first-person accounts of language learning vary widely, but each
has sought to investigate issues not normally accessible through out-
side observation. For instance, Schmidt documented his internal
struggle to “notice the gap” between his utterances and those of Por-
tuguese native speakers — a cognitive process that would have been
invisible to another researcher.
Some studies have involved the analysis of several different language
learners’ diaries by one researcher. In an investigation of learning strat-
egies, Asher (1983) analyzed the diaries of eight teenage students of
French, with entries made before and during a trip to Switzerland. Brown
(1985) analyzed sixty-one diaries kept by older and younger adult learn-
ers of Spanish, and compared their records with those she made as an
observer. Bailey (1983) examined eleven diaries in an investigation of
competitiveness and anxiety among adult second language learners.
These second-person analyses of first-person language learning journals
have yielded interesting insights that were not always obvious to the
original diarists.
In a different use of the diary process, Porter et al. (this volume,
Chapter 15) discuss the use of-journals by teachers-in-preparation to
document their reactions to reading materials, lectures, seminars, 7
materials-development projects, classroom observations, and some ini-—
tial teaching experiences intheir teacher preparation courses. In review-
ing the contents of these journals, Porter et al. conclude:—
The journal encourages students to go beyond learning course content in
isolation and to strive to link this information to theories and knowledge
beyond the particular assignment and the particular course. The journal thus
enables students to develop a professional approach toward learning and to
write as members of the larger language learning community. In sum, it
teaches them to do what we do as professionals — to work to integrate new
ideas with what we already know and to talk with each other as we do so.
(p. 240)

This approach parallels the use of dialogue journals (Spack and Sadow
1983) in teaching second language composition skills. I will refer to
diaries used to document participants’ reactions to teacher preparation
courses as ‘academic journals.
Porter et al. include teaching experiences in their list of topics to which
student teachers respond in diaries. In this context, the teachers-in-

216
 Diary studies in teacher education programs

preparation develop individual written accounts of their classroom

experiences and their subsequent reflections on the teaching/learning
process. Some diaries have been kept by teachers as part of their pres-
ervice graduate education, while others have been written by practicing
teachers, for inservice self-evaluation.
In one of the earliest studies, Telatnik (1977, 1978) did her master’s
thesis research on the introspective journal as a self-evaluative tool. The
findings deal predominantly with her struggles to articulate her philos-
ophy of teaching and to define good teaching. The main difficulty she
faced arose in trying to mesh her own ideas about effective teaching,
based on her experience and her belief system, with the experts’ and
theorists’ ideas she encountered in her graduate program.
The question of teacher power emerges in a diary study conducted
by Butler-Wall (1979), who kept a record of her teaching in an up-
per-intermediate, university English as a second language class. Other
major themes that emerged in Butler-Wall’s diary study were feed-
back, harmony, and community, as they relate to classroom language
teaching.
Deen (1987) kept a diary of her experiences as she taught a project-
based course in Dutch as a second language at the same time that she
was taking a graduate seminar on project-based language teaching.
Deen’s diary study combines her own observations about the course she
was teaching with written comments from the professor of the graduate
seminar.
Ho (1985) conducted a diary study on the use of English and/or
Chinese to teach remedial English classes in secondary schools in
Hong Kong, in order to investigate the “‘teacher’s actual feelings and
frustrations experienced in making the language choice” (p. ii). (She
also collected survey data about other teachers’ classroom language
choices.)
Among my own graduate students, I have used the diary study ap-
proach as one option for the classroom-centered research project re-
quired in the-practicum, the course in which the graduate students
‘complet e teaching assignment. Over the years, the resulting
a practice
and creativity,
journals have focused on issues related to lesson planning
time management, problems faced by nonnative teachers of English,
classroomr control, group work, and difficult student-teacher relations.
My-sense of the results is that, while these journals were not necessarily
always gems of ethnographic investigation, they were often extremely
useful exercises for the teachers-in-preparation, both in generating be-
havioral changes and in developing self-confidence.
Since I am not at liberty to cite any of these unpublished diaries, |
will draw on the studies listed earlier in discussing the possible benefits

247
Kathleen M. Bailey

of keeping a teaching journal. First, however, it is useful to summarize

the procedures involved and consider some remaining questions about
diary studies.

Keeping a language learning or teaching diary

The procedures for keeping a diary are relatively simple, technologically
speaking, but the process does require discipline and patience. The fol-
lowing suggestions may help preservice or inservice teachers who wish
to conduct diary studies.
The steps involved in doing a diary study are depicted in the flow
chart in Figure 1. It should be noted that diary studies, both as qualitative
research and as teacher-preparation tools, are still evolving. The steps
depicted in Figure 1 have been followed with more or less devotion,
depending on the individual diarist’s purposes and personality. For in-
stance, some diary studies have not included a language learning or
teaching history (step 1). Compiling such an account is particularly useful
for teachers-in-preparation because, in many cases, we teach as we have
been taught: The patterns that emerge in our current classroom behaviors
may have been formed (or at least clearly modeled) long ago. Some
diarists have not rewritten their uncensored private journals for public
review (step 3). In actual practice, events that are embarrassing or painful
when they occur often lose their sting after weeks of reflection, and can
be discussed openly and objectively in the analysis. However, teachers-
in-preparation can be especially sensitive to criticism and perceived fail-
ure. Even if my graduate students choose not to edit their private jour-
nals, I suggest that they remove or staple shut any pages they don’t want
me to read.
The main point is that the original journal entries must be candid if
the diarist is to benefit from reviewing them. The novice teacher must
feel free to reflect, experiment, criticize, doubt, express frustration, and
raise questions in the journal. Otherwise its main benefits in teacher
development — personal development and insights about teaching — will
be negated.
In talking about how teachers-in-preparation can use intensive jour-
nals, I specifically want to separate the two phases of conducting a diary
study: (1) making the (daily) diary entries and (2) analyzing he raw
qualitative data provided by these entries. Although simply keeping the
diary and not analyzing the results may be helpful to the individual
diarist, the finished document does not constitute a diary study per se
unless analysis has been undertaken: Unfortunately, it is beyond the
scope of this paper to review the procedures for analyzing qualitative
data such as those yielded by the diary entries. Interested readers are
218
 Diary studies in teacher education programs

Language learning 1. The diarist provides an account

(or teaching) history of personal language learning or
teaching history.

Second language 2. The diarist systematically records

(teaching or events, details, and feelings about
learning) experience the current language experience in
the diary.

Confidential and
candid diary

Rewritten public 3. The diarist revises the journal

diary entries for the public version
of the diary, clarifying meaning
in the process.

Sifting the data 4. The diarist studies the journal

for trends entries, looking for patterns
and questions and significant events. (Also,
other researchers may analyze
the diary entries.)

DIARY STUDY 5. The factors identified as being

= important to the language
Language learning learning or teaching experience
history are interpreted and discussed
in the final diary study. Ideas
: from the pedagogy literature
efor public | may be added at this stage.
diary

Interpretive
analysis

Figure 1 Conducting a language learning or teaching diary study.

(Adapted from Bailey and Ochsner 1983: 90.)
referred to Bogdan and Taylor (1975), Crippendorf (1980), Spradley
(1980), Bailey and Ochsner (1983), or Matsumoto (1987) for further
information. The following suggestions about starting a diary study are
given, first, as potentially useful ideas collected from several teachers
and teachers-in-preparation who have kept diaries and, second, as a way
of illustrating some of the typical procedures involved.
219
Kathleen M. Bailey

First, if a diarist is taking or teaching a regularly scheduled language

class, it is important to. set aside time each day immediately following
the class to write in the diary. The diary entries should be written in a
pleasant place free of interruptions. Some diarists who are comfortable
with word processors have used these to write and record their diary
entries. A few people have preferred to tape-record their entries, since
they found writing to be cumbersome. However, in choosing this option,
one must consider the data analysis phase: Will it be necessary to tran-
scribe the tapes in order to analyze the data? If so, many hours will be
added to the analysis. Thus, a diarist must decide on a balance between
overwhelming quantity and the possible depth of quality added by elec-
tronic recordings.
Second, the time allotted to writing about the language teaching or
learning experience should at least equal the time spent in class. A learner
or teacher immersed in the target culture will probably find it impossible
to record everything that happens in a day, so it may be helpful to focus
the diary entries on some particular aspect of interest.
Many diarists have reported great difficulty in getting started, partly
because honestly focusing on one’s own behavior can be an uncom-
fortable process. Telatnik (1978: 2) reports:
At first it was very slow work. For almost two weeks I used only ten or
twenty minutes of my hour. It was difficult both to write and to know what
to write. Without realizing it, I was editing my thoughts before I put them
down on paper...It was not until the fourth or fifth week that I was able to
read the journal and say, “Oh, so that’s what I do.”

Thus it is important to set up the conditions for writing so that the

actual process of writing is (or can become) relatively free — not a chore
to dread, or one that interferes with learning, teaching, or preparation
time.
The next point is related both to Telatnik’s comment and to recent
writings about the “‘process approach” to composing (Flower and Hayes
1977; Mayher, Lester, and Pradl 1983). In recording entries in the orig-
inal uncensored version of the diary, one should not worry about style,
grammar, or organization— especially when writing in a second lan-
guage. The goal is to get complete and accurate data while therecol-
lections are still fresh. For this reason, the original diary entries often
read like “stream of consciousness” writing. (The data presentation can
be polished later, if and when the journal is edited for public consump-
tion, perhaps with input from classmates or colleagues.)
Some of the language learning and teaching journals that have been
kept to date are full of fascinating but unsubstantiated insights. Potential
diarists thus need to reflect carefully as they are writing their diary
entries. In writing an assertion, a diarist should ask “Why? Why did I
220
 Diary studies in teacher education programs

write that? What evidence do I have for the statement I just made?” If
the answers are not readily apparent, these questions can be kept in
mind as the language experience continues, since they may prompt ad-
ditional insights for future entries. Wherever possible, it is important to
support reflective comments with examples from class sessions or actual
language data.
This advice on keeping a journal is based on common sense and the
experience of several people who have kept and analyzed diaries. Other
procedures may work equally well for different diarists, as long as one
tries to be systematic, thorough, and honest.

Remaining questions

READING OTHER DIARIES

Should a diarist read other language learning or teaching diary studies

while keeping a journal? Some researchers have been concerned that this
practice might lead to a “‘contamination” of the data. While this issue
is certainly a problem in “pure research,” in which the researcher tries
to influence the setting under study as little as possible, it is much less
of a concern in applied research, and even less so in “‘action research,”
in which the researcher actively sets out to generate change by conducting
the study.
In teacher preparation practicums, I have often asked students-to-read
aloud selections from their teaching journals, with the result that other
students in the class have fourid parallels with, and gained insights into, ~
their own issues. Furthermore, their-classmates have sometimes Offered
comments which helped the individual writers interpret their own rec-
ords or benefit from the teaching experience in ways that had not oc-
curred to them directly.

DIARIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING THEORY

Should a diarist read about and comment on theories regarding language

learning or teaching while keeping a diary? The concern is that this
process might mold the diarist’s insights to fit the theories. Again, per-
haps in conducting “(pure research” one would want teachers keeping
diaries to avoid reading the research literature in the field, to keep from
biasing the results. But for purposes of teacher preparation, the exam-
ination of current theories in the context of one’s own classroom is very
helpful. A comment from Telatnik’s (1978: 1) analysis of her teaching
journal brings this issue into focus:
Even after my years of experience and training, I was uncertain about what
worked and what did not work and why. I was challenged from all sides by
221
Kathleen M. Bailey
what one expert or another said was the correct methodology or the correct
theory. But, because theywere “experts,” I thought I should accept what
they said even though my own experience did not always support their
theories.
Telatnik’s position echoes the comments of Porter et al. (this volume,
p. 235), who note that using academic journals encourages the teachers-
in-preparation to make connections between the content of their grad-
uate courses and their own teaching.

TIME MANAGEMENT

A third concern with data collection is the time factor. Keeping and
analyzing a language learning or teaching diary is a laborious procedure
(Butler-Wall 1979: 4). The value of using tape recordings must be bal-
anced against the time the data analysis will involve and the purposes
to which it will be put. In a paper comparing diary studies with partic-
ipant observation, Brown observed that “field notes produced with the
aid of an audiotape tended to be 50% longer than those produced solely
from notes by hand” (1985: 127). Presumably this doubling factor would
pertain to the diary entries as well.

TAKING NOTES IN CLASS

Another question is whether a diarist should try to take notes in class

during the actual language learning or teaching experience. For students,
the note-taking process might be distracting enough to interfere with
their actual language learning. For teachers, it would be well nigh im-
possible to make notes during the teacher-fronted portions of lessons,
though brief notes could be made during group work or individual
students’ presentations, which would certainly add to the immediacy of
the journal entries written after class. In point of fact, a diarist is a
participant observer, and this role implies a delicate, Janus-like balance:
One must both participate and observe. In general, the luxury of making
running field notes during the actual events under investigation is limited
largely to nonparticipant observers. This is why so many of the diary
studies are as much retrospective as introspective (Allwright 1988:
248-9).

USE OF OTHER DATA

The issues of note taking and tape recording lead to the next question.
To what extent can other data (e.g., test scores, compositions written
in the target language, supervisor’s observations of the teaching process)
be used to augment the researcher’s insights? (This question is related
to the practice of triangulation in qualitative research — see van Lier

2a
 Diary studies in teacher education programs

1988.) Some of the language learning diaries have made excellent use
of external information. For example, Schmidt and Frota (1986) incor-
porated an error analysis based on taped conversations during Schmidt’s
acquisition of Portuguese. In the teaching diaries, Ho (1985) used survey
data to augment her diary study of teachers’ language choice in remedial
English classrooms in Hong Kong. Telatnik (1978) has incorporated
supervisors’ observational input in the interpretation of her teaching
journal entries:
[My supervisor] commented once that, during a lesson she observed, she was
slightly confused about how an exercise I had the students do was supposed
to go. But she said she understood once we got started. This chance remark,
in the light of my journal entries expressing my displeasure with sluggish
lessons, made me realize that sometimes I gave unclear instructions.

In this case, it was the combination of keeping a diary and receiving

outside input that led the teacher/diarist to an insight about her teaching.
ae
THE EFFECT OF DIARIES ON THE LEARNING PROCESS

A final question has to do with the extent to which keeping a diary (i.e.,
of examining one’s own language learning or teaching experience) in-
fluences the experience. An evolving self-assessment seems to be a natural
part of the process. Brown (1985: 131), in her examination of the diaries
kept by sixty-one adult learners of Spanish, notes that many second
language learners “‘gave evidence in their journals of being aware of their
progress. It may be that the awareness would have come without the
journals, but writing it down made it very evident.” She concluded that
“the journal keeping itself makes a difference in the learning situation”
(1985: 130).
The teachers’ diaries reveal a similar pattern of awareness raising.
Again, Telatnik’s comments (1978: 7—8) are revealing:
After having analyzed myself daily I tended to see other people’s analysis of
my teaching more objectively. Having learned to be honest and objective in
my own recording, I found it easier to be more honest and objective about
others’ comments... With Observer X, who criticized my authoritarian,
teacher-dominated approach, I began to become less defensive. My
resentment passed when I accepted the fact that I did run a teacher-
dominated classroom and that was exactly what I wanted. I no longer
secretly raged through our discussions. I even managed to glean from our
sessions a few techniques on encouraging student participation.

Thus, once again we see a distinction, possibly even a conflict, between

the use of diary studies as research tools and their use in teacher edu-
cation. Whereas a researcher would be concerned about the diary-keep-
ing itself influencing the phenomena under investigation, in teacher
223
Kathleen M. Bailey

education the diary’s awareness-raising function can be extremely help-

ful. In fact, van Lier (personal communication) has suggested that, iron-
ically, the best diary from an educational point of view might be the
worst from a research perspective.

Benefits of conducting a diary study

While many diarists have commented on the usefulness of conducting

a diary study, such remarks come from a self-selected sample: People
who choose to conduct diary studies probably have different psycho-
logical profiles from those who dislike the idea. Certainly, none of the
published accounts contain comments from potential diarists who aban-
doned the process because they found it more tedious than helpful. The
following ideas should be interpreted in this light.
Deen (1987: 15-16) has commented directly on the benefits of con-
ducting a diary study:
The study showed the role the diary played in defining a personal philosophy
of teaching and it reflected problems with building an image of what a
classroom looks like and what the teacher’s roles are in project-based
learning... Keeping a diary helped me very much in clarifying my thoughts
and feelings about learning and my way of handling problems that came
forth from doing real learning.
Butler-Wall (1979: 6) notes that keeping a diary helped her
to sort out recurring issues, important questions, and points to keep an eye
on in the future... Already some interesting themes are emerging which
promise to lead to certain insights available from no other source than
introspection.

Thus the very act of recording one’s impressions seems to be helpful for
some teachers.
Bartlett (this volume, page 209) has commented on the writing process
in his discussion of reflective teaching:
Probably the best means of observation is to record our practice. This may
be done by audio or visual means (tape-recording a lesson, using
photography, etc.), but the best means would seem to involve some form of
writing. In writing, we begin not only to observe, but we take the first step in
reflecting on and about our practice.
However, I would argue that simply writing diary entries does not yield
the maximum potential benefit of the process. In order to really learn
from the record, the diarist should reread the journal entries and try
to find-the patterns therein. Butler-Wall makes this point very well
(1979: 10):

224
 Diary studies in teacher education programs
Much of the time I actually did not know what was going on in the
classroom. Because I tended to equate positive affect with learning, I looked
no further to find out if any learning was in fact taking place. A review of
the diary entries suggests that this would have been wise. It seems that a
diary is more than the sum of its parts; although I was the one who recorded
every individual item, I did not realize what I had recorded until I had
recorded many items.

My own experience in keeping a language learning diary bears out Butler-

Wall’s realization. When John Schumann (then my professor) first read
my French class diary, he asked if I was a competitive learner. I assured
him (naively, but quite honestly) that I was a very cooperative, group-
oriented language learner. John’s only comment was, “Look again, Ka-
thi.” A subsequent analysis of the diary entries revealed numerous man-
ifestations of competitiveness (Bailey 1983), which I had not noticed in
my original review of the entries.
Again, Butler-Wall’s comments are insightful:
One of the uses of diary studies is to clarify issues... These issues emerge
when one looks at the data again and again — to see what is included, what
is left out, what kind of language is used, what kind of perspective is taken,
what kinds of reactions are noted, what kind of tone is adopted, what kinds
of connections are made, what the cumulative weights are, what the parts
add up to, what projections can be posited, what the cycles can reveal.
(0979: 13)

Thus, in reworking, rethinking, and interpreting the diary entries, teach-

ers can gain powerful insights into their own classroom behavior and
motivation.

Conclusion

Several diarists have mentioned that it is probably not a good idea to

force anyone to keep a journal. Some people are simply not comfortable
with self-examination and introspection, and the issues that emerge can
be painfully revealing. For teacher-educators considering assigning a
diary study, I would advise using it as an option among several possi-
bilities. Some student teachers may be much more amenable to tran-
scribing tape recordings of their own lessons, and analyzing the resulting
data for linguistic or discourse-level units instead. This more objective
approach simply provides a different “window on the classroom world”
(Brown 1985).
Nevertheless, for teachers who do undertake the diary study process,
it can be as rewarding as it is humbling. One discovers strengths and
previously unnoticed talents in the cumulative entries. For novice teach-
22
Kathleen M. Bailey

ers in teacher preparation programs, who will not always be in a position

to receive outside feedback from an educator, supervisor, or cooperating
teacher, the diary study process can be invaluable. One of our respon-
sibilities, as teacher educators, during preservice preparation is to pro-
vide beginning teachers with usable tools for self-evaluation, for ongoing
development in the absence of our input. The mechanism of the diary
study can do just that.

226
15 An ongoing dialogue: learning logs for
teacher preparation
Patricia A. Porter, Lynn M. Goldstein, Judith
Leatherman, and Susan Conrad

The use of journals in teacher preparation courses is motivated by three

current ideas in education. The first is the importance of the connection
between writing and learning. In this respect, writing can be viewed as
a discovery process — a way to explore ideas, generate and connect ideas,
change preconceived notions, and connect abstract ideas and experi-
ences. (See, for example, Murray 1968; Flower and Hayes 1977; Emig
1978; Perl 1979; Langer 1986.) Journals have been used increasingly in
content courses and in writing courses to exploit this writing—learning
connection. Mayher, Lester, and Pradl (1983) discuss the use of learning
logs or content journals in high school classes such as biology and chem-
istry: ““One of the most effective ways students can use writing as an
aid to learning is to keep a running account of what is going on as they
work in a particular course. Teachers can skim these logs and find out
what students understand or don’t understand about the material” (p.
82). They suggest that when teachers ask students to introspect about
learning, comment on the class, and communicate about what they are
learning, students get more involved in the course and make connections
between themselves and the course material.
A second idea that motivates the use of journals is that writing is a
social activity as well as a cognitive activity (Cooper 1986). Writing is
seen not as a solitary pursuit but as discourse among people with shared
interests. Teachers-in-preparation are exploring new ideas but they are
also exploring the ways in which members of the language teaching
profession talk and write about these ideas. Journals help these student
teachers to become members of this discourse community by giving them
opportunities to write within it and to get responses from their teachers,
who are active and practiced members. These exchanges give students
both a real audience within the community and a developing sense of
being a member of the community.
The third idea is the current focus in language teaching on a com-
municative approach, which implies more learner involvement in the
learning process (see, for example, Breen 1985; Richards and Rodgers
1986). Teacher educators committed to a communicative approach em-

The authors of this paper are two teachers who assign journals in their TESL training
courses and two students who wrote journals while in training.
227,
Patricia A. Porter et al.

phasize the need for second language students to be active language

learners, to get more involved in the learning process by taking respon-
sibility for their role in it. Student teachers are encouraged to find ways
to use learner input in the curriculum, to focus their classes to meet
learner needs, and to make their teaching more “process” than “‘prod-
uct” oriented. In spite of all this, in teacher preparation courses the
predominant mode of instruction tends to be the traditional teacher-
centered format, with teacher-generated curricula and an emphasis on
evaluated products as a measure of learning. In other words, the actual
teacher education process is not in accord with the recommended
method. The use of journals in teacher education courses makes prep-
aration more closely parallel to the type of teaching expected of student
teachers.

Procedures for using journals

The journal assignment

Journals can be used in all types of teacher preparation classes, from
those of a theoretical nature, such as a survey of sociolinguistics or of
second language acquisition (SLA), to those of a more practical nature,
such as a survey of methodologies, a materials-preparation class, or a
practicum involving extensive observation and/or teaching. At the be-
ginning of the term, the journal is assigned as an integral part of the
course: Students are asked to regularly write and hand in their journals.
Since this type of journal is new to most students, a list of suggestions
for what to write about-is-helpful. For example, for a theory-oriented
class with extensive readings, the following suggestions are useful:
React to class discussions.
Describe class discussions.
Ask questions about readings/discussions.
Relate readings/discussions to your own experiences.
React to something that you read.
Describe something that you read.
Argue for/against something you read/discussed.
Explore pedagogical implications of readings/discussions.
Describe new knowledge you have obtained.
Fit new knowledge into what you already know.
pe ge Question the applications, motivations, uses, or significance of what
elate
eae
as
ean
you have learned.
For an applied class with less emphasis on readings, some additional
suggestions are:

228
 Learning logs for teacher preparation

12. React to class demonstrations, observations, teaching/tutoring ex-

periences, etc.
13. Make connections between course content and previous experiences
you have had as a teacher, tutor, language learner, etc.
14. Argue for/against a particular technique or procedure.
The journal can be used in connection with students’ “products,” such
as lesson plans, research reports, term papers, and even oral presenta-
tions and examinations. If used this way, these suggestions are
appropriate:
15. Describe your progress or problems with the current assignment/
exam.
16. React to my evaluation of your last assignment/exam.
(These suggestions are adapted from Mayher et al. 1983: 24.)
To make the journal most effective, four journal “ground rules” need
to be established: First, the journal is not a personal diary, although
students are encouraged to write about personal experiences as they
relate to the content of the course. It is necessary to discuss this since
many students may have written personal diaries or may have assigned
them to their second language students. Second, the journal is not a
place simply to take notes. Many students equate writing about readings
or class discussions with note taking, and need to understand that the
journal is a place to go beyond notes by exploring, reacting, making
connections, and so on. Third, the journal entries are not intended to
be polished pieces of writing. If the writing task is likened more to free
writing than to a final product, students will have less trouble with the
assignment. Finally, the journal deserves the same serious attention as
any other course assignment, even though it is not graded.
How often the students hand in their journals depends on the nature
and structure of the course. If the journal is used primarily as a cognitive
tool for students to write about new and difficult concepts encountered
in readings and class lectures and discussions, as in a theoretical course,
then the journal can be collected only several times during the term.
Many students need time to process what they are reading and make
connections among a number of readings. If the journal is used in a
practical course, where there is apt to be less reading and more focus
on the demonstration of techniques, procedures, and materials, then the
journal can be collected more frequently — every week of a quarter or
semester course, more often in an intensive training course. No matter
how often the journal is handed in, writing every week is productive
since the journal is meant to be ongoing. How much students write per
entry can vary. On the whole, at least one paragraph per entry seems a
minimum to develop an idea, but some teachers may want to require
more if this amount leads to a superficial treatment of issues.
229
Patricia A. Porter et al.

The teacher’s response

The teacher’s response plays an important role in the effectiveness of
the journal. The teacher should write a response to each entry, sometimes
brief, sometimes lengthy. The response may focus on answers to ques-
tions, sources students can go to, praise for good insights, points of
agreement or disagreement, or even personal experiences or opinions
related to issues raised in the journal. Since students are concentrating
on the content, as in other journals, the teacher’s response should not
extend to correction of grammatical errors; however, incorrect uses of
technical terms or important new concepts should be pointed out. Stu-
dents appreciate generic comments such as “Good point,” “I agree,”’
“Good grief!’’, ““What a wonderful way to put it,’ because such com-
ments sprinkled throughout their entries make them feel listened to and
encouraged. But in general, teacher responses must be text-specific to
create an ongoing dialogue. Text-specific comments are those that relate
directly to the content of the entry and would not apply to any other
entry. The following exchanges demonstrate text-specific responses to
student entries:
Student (from an SLA course):
You know, I’m not bothered by early studies being ill-conceived or not
proving what they were supposed to prove. 1. I think they still provide
valuable info. 2. They served as a springboard for later studies. 3. For
students of SLA they make clear the purposes of more complex studies. It
sort of reminds me of in high school and college lab classes how we had to
repeat the research of prominent scientists. We knew the results, but the act
of thinking the problem out was valuable.
Instructor:
I can’t agree more with you. The early studies do provide the foundation —
it’s only in hindsight that we see the “choles” and problems.
Student (from a Methods course):
This week I asked X to observe my grammar class at the institute. His
comments, like yours, have made me realize that my planning/sequencing is a
bit off. For example in the grammar class I presented the present perfect and
its uses and went from the most abstract to the simplest. How’s that for
being up-side down?
Instructor:
Well, no one springs into the world knowing how to teach grammar! I still
have trouble deciding what and how to teach it (after 17 years). I'd be
interested in your reactions to our verb chapters in the English 208 materials.
Maybe some of the information there would be of use to you as background
(e.g., the major uses of the various tenses).

In addition to individual written responses, teachers might wish to write

their own journal entries, and then distribute these or read them to the

230
 Learning logs for teacher preparation

class (see, for example, Spack and Sadow 1983). Such an entry would
not be presented as a model to copy, but as one example of a critical
and thoughtful reaction. This procedure reinforces the idea of the social
uses of writing, that is, that the teacher and the students are part of a
community. One teacher used this procedure in a second language ac-
quisition course in which students kept journals on their ongoing study
of a second or foreign language. During the semester, the teacher visited
Thailand, a country in which he had previously lived. When he returned,
he wrote and distributed to the class his reflections on his use of Thai
— vocabulary, discourse patterns, comprehension, and the possible rea-
sons for his surprising fluency after an absence of twelve years.
Another kind of response, also in addition to individual written re-
sponses, is for the teacher to regularly give “public feedback” on journal
contents. While reading the journals, the teacher makes notes of inter-
esting or controversial points or questions that come up; then the teacher
can begin the following class session with a brief mention of these issues,
without identifying the authors, and discussion can follow. This “public
feedback” on journals not only allows for student input into the cur-
riculum and lets students know what their classmates are writing about,
but can also lead to meaningful class discussion.

Benefits of using journals

The use of journals in teacher preparation courses benefits both teacher

and student in numerous ways. In this section we describe these benefits,
supporting our contentions with excerpts from the students’ journals
and from final journal entries they have written evaluating the journal
as a learning tool. These excerpts are coded as to type of course (So-
ciolinguistics, SLA, Methods).
1. An obvious benefit is that students can get help with areas of course
content where they are having difficulty. In the journals, students ask
about terms, concepts, and even entire readings that they do not un-
derstand. The teacher can then provide individual help where needed.
In one instance, a student wrote about a contradiction between what
she found in the readings and what she observed in her own teaching:
People must still believe that contrastive analysis is useful. For example, all
the language departments here have such a course. There is no denying that
first-language interference is a problem in language acquisition. I teach and
we practice age: “J’ai quinze ans, J’ai seize ans” but still they say and write
“Je suis quinze, Je suis seize.” After all these years I know what errors will
occur, but I don’t seem able to stop them. Maybe I have to keep reminding
as
myself of Schumann’s pidginization process and just accept these errors
natural and inevitable. (SLA)

231
Patricia A. Porter et al.

Her journal entry gave the teacher a chance to clarify the role of con-
trastive analysis in second language acquisition theory:
Teacher’s response:
I don’t think that the current position belittles interference’s role in SLA.
What it does do, however, is say the following:
1) We can’t predict transfer errors, we can only (possibly) explain them.
2)eyOften transfer errors occur when two languages are similar rather than
different.
3) We need a psycholinguistic definition to explain “difficulty” when a
nonnative speaker relies on his/her first language.
4) We need an adequate theory of grammar (maybe markedness theory) in
which to do contrastive analysis.
5) We need to see transfer as part of the larger process of relying on old
information.

In addition, the teacher can be alerted to unexpected areas of difficulty.

For example, a teacher perceived a clear difference between teaching
standard English to native speakers of nonstandard English and teaching
English as a second language (ESL) to nonnative speakers. Therefore,
she did not anticipate the following question from a student in her
sociolinguistics class:
Why should teaching standard English be any more “impossible” than
teaching any other foreign language in the classroom if appropriate methods
are used? (Sociolinguistics)

This question gave the teacher an opportunity to write a response out-

lining what these differences are.
If a learning problem is common to a number of students, then the
area can be addressed in class and planned for in subsequent semesters.
For example, in a methods class several students expressed confusion in
their journals about the meanings of approach, design, and procedure:
If I were asked to define my approach, I might be a little hard pressed. Yes, I
could probably come up with appropriate “buzz” words, but do I always
know how to implement my approach? Does this sound weird? Maybe you
could suggest some articles on how to define one’s own approach. (Methods)

Could you please talk about the clear definitions of Approach, Design, and
Procedure? (Methods)

As a result of these questions, the teacher spent additional class time

explaining these concepts and planned for the following semester to
discuss this topic in greater depth before giving assigned readings.
Finally, because it is a safe place, students take advantage of the journal
to talk about learning problems, and consequently many more learning
problems get addressed. Students are often reluctant to ask such ques-
232
 Learning logs for teacher preparation

tions publicly during class and often are too busy or too shy to see the
teacher during office hours. As one student summed it up:
Whenever I’ve had a question I could always put it in my journal and you
answered it. I would never ask a question in class. I don’t like to talk in class
and I rarely ask questions, and I don’t like to take up your time. . . (Methods)

2. A second benefit of using journals is that they promote autonomous

learning, encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learn-
ing and to develop their own ideas. For example, the following excerpts
show how one student used the journal not only to express her confusion
about standard dialect learning but to find her own way out of this
confusion. Over the course of several weeks, this student explored the
issue, finally coming to the realization that standard dialect learning is
not so much a linguistic endeavor as a sociolinguistic endeavor.
It is very interesting to see that language (English) and social classes have
strong relationship. A society like Japan, it is not said that there are any
significant relations between one’s academic achievement [and the language
one uses] and a social group he belongs to. (Sociolinguistics)
As I wrote after reading Cazden and Dickenson’s article, I remember writing
composition in Hiroshima dialect in the 1st or 2nd grades. But I gradually
realized, without teachers mentioning me, that we had to use different form
as spoken in T.V. in writing composition and I don’t think anyone had a
hard time adopting that form. Is it because American dialects are more
complicated in grammar and phonology that they have serious problems
introducing Standard English? (same journal)

If a Japanese child is put into an American school without any knowledge of

English, I heard he will acquire English within a few months. I wondered
why black people can’t learn Standard English. However, reading this article,
I came to realize that they don’t because with the established social
institutions they see no need to. (same journal)

Taking responsibility for learning also involves critically evaluating

course content. In this next excerpt, the student both questions current
theory and develops an alternative view.
After our discussion today about personality, I’ve decided that the theories
(in relation to SLA) are all iffy. I think that there are people that fit into the
stereotypical mold at either end of the continuum, but most are probably
anywhere in the middle. There are too many varying situations/contexts
possible in or during the learning process to make any definite
generalizations. For instance, you consider yourself to be “always” an
you
analytical type learner, and yet in your Japanese Silent Way experience
changed. So I think it’s possible to be field independent at one time, or in one
situation, and field dependent at another or in another. (SLA)

233
Patricia A. Porter et al.

Autonomous learning is promoted by the very act of writing because

writing both stimulates and shapes ideas. The following excerpts dem-
onstrate that students both recognized and benefited from this process.
One more reflection before I go back to-actually writing this journal:
Looking back through the journal I see I’ve sort of settled into writing
sentences and paragraphs more than just notes. At the time I didn’t
consciously think of it, but I see now I needed to write sentences to help me
make complete ideas. In notes I can just put down a concept and not say
anything about it. In sentences I have to relate it to something or give it some
significance in some way. (Sociolinguistics)

Not only did I learn a lot from your comments every week, but oftentimes I
benefitted simply from the thought and effort required to put an entry
together. (Methods)

Looking back through my journal I did learn a little bit about how I learn
and writing plays a big role. By writing things down I look at them and the
words seem to trigger off thinking. (Methods)

3. A related benefit is that through the exchange of ideas that occurs

between students and teachers in the journals, students gain confidence
in their ability to learn, to make sense of difficult material, and to have
original insights. The traditional relationship between teacher as all-
powerful knower and student as apprentice learner moves toward a
relationship of greater equality, of colleagues in a profession where each
has something of value to contribute. For example, one student wrote:
In Wolfram’s article we see that Puerto Ricans with more contact with blacks
show more use of characteristics of Black English and also tend to minimize
the troubles between Black and Puerto Rican groups. There’s a quantitative
difference between Puerto Ricans with a lot of contact and with a little
contact — that is, all the Puerto Ricans showed some use of Black English
characteristics. One way to consider this difference is in light of LePage’s
contention about social factors influencing speech only to the degree that
these factors represent groups with which the speaker identifies himself. Can
we say that the Puerto Ricans who use more Black English identify
themselves more with the Blacks, and they have more contact because they
identify with the Blacks? So it isn’t a matter of more contact causing more
use of Black English characteristics. Rather, the language use and having
more contact are both signs of the same thing: identifying with the Black
group. I haven’t really thought this out, just kind of playing with the idea.
(Sociolinguistics) a

The teacher’s response was:

This certainly is how I view it — and it’s exactly what motivated me to do my
dissertation research.

234
 Learning logs for teacher preparation

In a follow-up discussion, the student reported that this exchange made

her realize she could think on her own, that critically evaluating research
was not “‘a strange bizzare process” that only Ph.D.’s could do.
4. The fact that students take more responsibility for their learning
leads to a fourth benefit of journals: more productive class discussion.
Class time can be used for discussion of the implications and issues
raised by assignments, rather than just “going over the facts,” because
students have written and thought in depth about the readings, obser-
vations, and materials. One student described it this way:
When I had written about the readings before class, I brought more to the
class: I came to class already knowing what I did and didn’t know. I said
more because I felt more confident: I had already formulated questions and
made connections between the material and my experience, and I was
interested in getting other students’ reactions to my ideas. (Sociolinguistics)

5. A fifth benefit is that the journal encourages students to make

connections between course content and their own teaching. One student
told how a particular article had influenced her teaching:
Since I’ve read the first Pica and Doughty article, I’ve tried to change my
group work so that I’m doing 2-way activities. Now the non-vocal students
show their “information” to the group and still do not speak. I feel less
happy about the group work than I did before because I’m getting the same
types of communication as I got before but now I have more contrived
activities than I had before. (SLA)
The teacher responded:
Do you have any ideas why this is so? Has Y observed? Does he have any
suggestions?

Another student found that through her journal writing she developed
greater empathy with her own ESL students. She described the connec-
tion she had made between her own feelings about writing a journal
and the feelings her students may have about their writing:
After reading back over my journal, it was interesting to relive situations and
see the progress of my personal development as a teacher and learner. One of
the themes that stood out was how “exposed” I’ve felt. I’ve kept a personal
journal for several years and it was a new experience to have someone read
and react to what I’ve written. It is really scary to reveal yourself like that.
And that is something they’ve tried to make me aware of at work — how
terrifying it is for so many non-literate or partially literate students to write,
because it exposes them, not only their lack of literacy, but also their
the
thoughts and feelings. I remember my mentor telling me that for many of
down on paper. Even though my
students writing is like putting themselves
nd
writing skills are far beyond most of these students, I can now understa
their feeling of being “exposed .” (Methods )

235
Patricia A. Porter et al.

6. A sixth benefit is that the journals create interaction beyond the

classroom, both between teacher and student, and among students. In
the first place, the journal itself allows for an ongoing dialogue between
teacher and student that might not occur given the institutional con-
straints of most programs. Some students captured this idea in their
summary comments at the end of the semester:
Even though you and I didn’t personally converse much during the course of
the semester, I still feel like I have had more personal interaction with you
through this journal than I have had with any other professor of memory.
(Methods)

For me, it’s like a correspondence with someone who is at once mentor,
colleague and friend. (Methods)

Of course, the sad part is that our conversations will stop. Your comments
(and interest) became a real motivating force. I benefitted in many ways from
your additions, suggestions, and support. (Methods)
This dialogue is especially important for those students who are hesitant
to speak up in class. As one student put it:
I’m not exactly a shy person but large groups of people always intimidate me
and I tend to observe more than participate vocally ...So, this journal is a
good idea for students like me, who are hesitant to say a lot of things in
class. (Methods)
In addition, the ongoing dialogue seems to create a positive atmosphere
in which students feel free to talk to the teacher outside of class. For
example, one student sat in the library writing this entry:
Most of the class discussion clarifies ideas and issues brought up in the
reading. Often questions on the study guide I couldn’t answer before class I
can answer afterwards. However, the summary of the Tarone article left me
totally confused. I couldn’t even formulate a question I was so confused!
From talking to others after class, I found I wasn’t the only one. Perhaps a
written summary would help. Wait! Why am I writing this? I’m going to go
talk to you about it. (Sociolinguistics)
At this point the student went to the teacher’s office and discussed the
problems she was having with the article.
Finally, the journal leads to more student—student interaction. Stu-
dents talk to each other about their journal entries, sometimes out of
curiosity about what other students are writing and often out of their
continual involvement with the course content. One student described
it this way:
Writing in my journal would lead me to talk to people about a topic that
had come up and that would help me see other perspectives. It was a very
enriching experience. (Methods)

236
 Learning logs for teacher preparation

7. A seventh benefit, one consistent with the motivations for using

the journals in the first place, is that journals make the class more process
oriented, in effect matching our training methodology with the second
or foreign language methodology we wish to promote.
The increased interaction described earlier is very much a part of a
process approach. Yet another feature of a process approach is that
student input can in part shape the curriculum. By reading journals
regularly, the teacher is in touch with the current state of the learners’
knowledge: The teacher has some hints about what is difficult for stu-
dents, what is interesting to them, what they need to get more infor-
mation about, what they are ready to learn about, what is controversial
to them, and so forth, and the teacher can then make the class more
reflective of learners’ concerns. One student recognized this and com-
mented on it in the journal:
I’ve also been thinking about the advantages of using learning journals in
teaching a class. When you take notes on the journals and bring up larger
issues in class, you give the class much more immediacy and relevance to the
students. (Methods)

The teacher can use this information about learner concerns to restruc-
ture the class for the timely presentation of particular information. For
example, in a methods class the syllabus included “teacher feedback”
as a topic in week ten. But the students were observing ESL classes
regularly, and in week three they had a number of questions about
feedback techniques they were seeing. In response, the teacher gave an
introduction to feedback techniques and issues at that point in the se-
mester in addition to covering the material in greater depth during week
ten as planned.
Student input via journals can also restructure the course content. An
example from a methods class emphasizes how the process can work.
In class, students had demonstrated listening activities that they had
designed. In response to the content of the dialogue in one of these, one
student wrote a beautifully reasoned five-page journal entry questioning
why ESL teachers tended to emphasize the negative factors in American
culture in their lessons: for example, showing films of American teen-
agers as vandals, discussing the internment of Japanese during World
War II, making jokes about the president, and so on. (This student had
seen examples of this in many classes and had discussed this concern
with other students before writing about it in her journal.) The teacher
brought the issue up in class and it generated a great deal of passionate
discussion, which, incidentally, did not end on a note of consensus. But
the teacher felt it was an important consciousness-raising session for
both new and experienced teachers, and one that certainly hadn’t been
planned for in the syllabus. The journals that followed the discussion,
237
Patricia A. Porter et al.

as was typical, contained even more discussion on the topic by those

who hadn’t presented*their ideas in class.
Another feature of a process approach is that the teacher has a deeper
context in which to evaluate the student. For example, when students
use the journal to describe their preparation of course assignments, the
teacher can not only intervene and help out but also can evaluate the
work with a much greater depth of understanding. Spack and Sadow
(1983), in writing about the benefits of working journals in composition
courses, describe it in this way:
As teachers, we become aware that each of our students’ papers has its own
history — we learn about the difficulties and successes they have encountered
from inception to completion. This awareness has influenced the comments
we write on the papers we do correct and grade; we evaluate not only the
product, but also take into consideration the knowledge that writing is an
enormously complex activity. (p. 586)
The kind of context a journal entry can provide is illustrated in this
student’s description of her experiences in preparing a lesson plan.
Finally the lesson plan is done...I had originally planned to adapt materials
from others’ works, then I decided to write one of my own both out of
laziness and a desire to challenge myself. I did it although the dialog I created
sounds less than native. I did manage to read it to my husband (at 12
midnight). He pointed out that overall it was an interesting piece, but he felt
there were too many ums and uhuhs which made the dialog a bit unnatural
to him. He also thought it might be too colloquial. I did not accept this
though. So, Pll be waiting to hear your opinion on the dialog.
Also my decision to write on this topic (cross cultural marriage) was
somehow inspired by my own experience. As a result, I consider the creation
less rigid than if I had written something totally unfamiliar. There did not
seem to be a lot of hesitation during lesson planning having all those good
examples in front of me. After I read the draft, I felt that the teacher’s words
were a little rigid, so I tried to recall what you said in class and practiced out
loud to myself. I added many functional words to make the sentences flow
better.
Finally I thought my third multiple choice was a bit tricky. The students
have to be very attentive to get the right answer. Is it a bad thing to do?
(Methods)
Here, the teacher had a wealth of material as background to the product:
the student’s concerns about the naturalness of the dialogue and of the
teacher’s language, the validity of the questions. The teacher knew why
the student chose her theme, how she made use of the information and
samples she had been given, and how much difficulty she had in actually
writing the lesson. Thus, the teacher was able to read and evaluate the
lesson plan with this background in mind. After the lesson plan was
returned, the student responded with this entry:
238
 Learning logs for teacher preparation
Your criticism about the dialog is right — it does sound as though Tom was
lecturing on cross-cultural marriages. I think this problem largely resulted
from my Chinese thinking style. I grew up in an environment where all
written works were meant to be educational, every piece of work conveyed
some sort of moralistic message. Although personally I resent certain ways in
which moral standards are imposed, my writing oftentimes reflects the
lingering influence of my culture. Of course when that influence affected a
dialog between two Americans, the dialog had turned out to be rather
unbelieveable. Thank you for pointing out this weakness in my dialog. I will
try to adjust more. Originally, I did have some questions by Tom and
answers by Amy, but I crossed them out for fear the material would be too
long. When the two things — length and appropriateness — contradict each
other, how should we handle them? (same journal)

This response turned out to be an important learning experience for the

teacher, who hadn’t in fact made the connection between the student’s
“cultural conditioning” and the content of her dialogue. As can be seen,
the student’s response led to further questions for the teacher to answer.
Even when the journal is not used to describe preparation of work,
the entries regularly contain information that helps the teacher under-
stand the students better. For example, in this entry, the student supplied
vital information about her pattern of class participation.
Reading articles on biculturalism and on bilingual (biculture) education, I
was surprised to find myself influenced by or binded by Japanese culture.
When I think of questions I want to ask during class discussion, I always
think whether or not it would be a mutual question among classmates. If so,
it’s worthwhile to ask. But if not, it isn’t good to waste valuable time just
because of me. I consider myself as a person who is not so group-oriented as
other Japanese who tend to behave in groups. However, when I realized that
my way of thinking stated above is the result of putting the group first and
an individual second, I was surprised to find myself still under the Japanese
culture. (Sociolinguistics)

Conclusion

Teacher educators may find themselves concerned about the amount of

time journals entail for both themselves and their students. However,
we as teachers and students strongly recommend the addition of a journal
to teacher education courses even if this involves eliminating some read-
ings and/or assignments from the syllabus of an already developed
course. The benefits described here demonstrate that journals provide
opportunities for ongoing learning that most course assignments do not.
Throughout the course they allow for a dialogue between teacher and
students; they allow students to learn through writing without being
239
Patricia A. Porter et all.

evaluated on the writing itself; and they alert teachers to student concerns
and needs, and allow for these needs to be met in the course.
The journal encourages students to go beyond learning course content
in isolation and to strive to link this information to theories and knowl-
edge beyond the particular assignment and the particular course. The
journal thus enables students to develop a professional approach toward
learning and to write as members of the larger language teaching com-
munity. In sum, it teaches them to do what we do as professionals — to
work to integrate new ideas with what we already know and to talk
with each other as we do so.

240
Questions and tasks

Chapter 13 (Bartlett)
1. What are the characteristics of “‘reflective” teaching as defined by
Bartlett? What definitions are offered? In what ways does the concept
attempt to go beyond the notion of “effective” teaching?

2. “If we want to improve our teaching through reflective inquiry, we

must accept that it does not involve some modification of behaviour by
externally imposed directions or requirements, but that it requires de-
liberation and analysis of our ideas about teaching as a form of action
based on our changed understandings” (Bartlett, p. 203). To what extent
is such an attitude feasible in your own situation? What problems can
you anticipate in attempting to foster such an attitude?

3. Construct a questionnaire from the questions raised by Bartlett on

pages 206-207. Get some colleagues or teachers-in-preparation to com-
plete the questionnaire and summarize the responses. What common
themes and/or points of difference emerge? How might these be fed back
to the participants in the survey?

4. According to Bartlett, what is the significance of cultural and social

setting? Are there aspects of a particular social and cultural setting that
might be inconsistent with the notion of “reflectivity”?

5. Apply the process of mapping, informing, contesting, appraisal, and

acting to your own teaching. What insights emerge? How would you
modify this process for use with teachers-in-preparation?

Chapter 14 (Bailey)

6. List the advantages and disadvantages of keeping a diary as a profes-

sional development tool.

7. Using the procedure suggested by Bailey, keep a diary for a week

(or get colleagues or teachers-in-preparation to keep diaries). Review

241
Part V

the diary or diaries and note the insights that emerge. What problems
or difficulties occurred? i

8. How much time can or should teachers-in-preparation realistically

devote to keeping a diary?

9. What is meant by the remark that “the best diary from an educa-
tional point of view might be the worst one from a research perspective”
(p. 224)?

Chapter 15 (Porter et al.)

10. What suggestions do Porter et al. make for turning journals into an
ongoing dialogue? Why is such a dialogue considered important?

11. Review the excerpts from journals and the responses provided by
the teacher educators. Do the responses provide content or do they fulfill
an affective function? What responses would you have given?

12. List and comment on the seven advantages of learning logs advanced
by Porter et al.

13. Review the chapters in this section as a whole. What points of

similarity and difference do you find in relation to the following:
— teaching as a process
— teaching as introspection
— teaching as a social event
— the self-directed teacher
— teacher education as an interactive process.

242
Part VI Case studies

In this section case studies of teacher education programs or aspects of

such programs are presented. Each reflects a particular response to some
of the issues discussed in this book, and shows how some of the ap-
proaches and procedures discussed by the different authors in this col-
lection can be implemented.
In a major statement on the design of a teacher development program,
Lange (Chapter 16) situates language teacher education within a general
movement in education in which programs are school-based, involve
practicing teachers, and develop professionals. Characteristics of the
“good”? and the “reflective” teacher are articulated and discussed, and
a case is made for a broad focus on professional development rather
than one that focuses narrowly on training. Lange also argues strongly
for the notion that the base discipline for language teaching should be
education rather than linguistics. He then examines six characteristics
of the future “technological society” and develops from them a model
for teacher development organized on nine core features. According to
Lange, programs should be field-based, problem-centered, technology-
driven, developmental, competency-based, expertly staffed, use experi-
mental sharing, contain a critical mass, and be open-ended. A teacher
development program based on the model is then presented and
evaluated.
In the next chapter Johnson describes a program that focuses on the
teacher’s use of language in the classroom, particularly in settings where
English is used as the medium of instruction. The program initially
involves a focus on the performance of specific teaching acts and related
communicative tasks that recur across the school curriculum. The pro-
gram makes innovative use of the language laboratory as a convenient
setting in which teachers engage in communicative and analytical tasks.
Later, teachers evaluate their own classroom language through collecting
data on their own classroom language use.
Dubin and Wong outline in Chapter 18 a procedure that enables the
teacher educator working in a foreign language context to take as a
point of departure the participants’ perspective, rather than importing
the latest word in theory and practice from the outside. The first part
of the chapter addresses general principles in inservice training, and the

243
Part VI

second part presents a case study in which these principles are con-
textualized.
In the final chapter, Spada describes a major observation instrument,
the COLT (Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching) scheme,
which has been developed for analyzing classroom processes. While
instruments such as the COLT scheme have been developed to provide
data for classroom research, they are also invaluable for teacher edu-
cation, as they can be used to provide objective, quantifiable data on
what is actually happening in language classrooms. With appropriate
training, teachers-in-preparation can use such schemes to obtain insights
that are not readily revealed by unstructured observation. This is par-
ticularly valuable when it comes to self-analysis, because student teachers
can record, describe, and document changes to their own classroom
practices during the course of their professional preparation, and thereby
document their own professional growth.

244
16 A blueprint for a teacher development
program
Dale L. Lange

Teacher education in the United States is changing. It is clear that the social
pressure brought to bear on teaching and education from the plethora of
reports, critiques, and suggestions from broad segments of the society is
having an effect. If the 1988 meeting of the National Holmes Group in
Washington, D.C., is any indication, teacher developers are moving dra-
matically toward the renewal of teacher education. The collaboration of
school districts and universities in the establishment of professional devel-
opment schools and the description of schools for the twenty-first century
to provide a context in which “‘tomorrow’s teachers” would function are
bold steps of the Holmes Group (Quality Schooling... 1988). Individual
universities are also reorienting their efforts in the preparation of teachers
away from the typically university-controlled program to those which
are school-based, involve practicing teachers, and develop professionals.
The contextualization and description of an experimental program in
second language teacher development at the University of Minnesota
provides an example of one university’s change in direction.

The general need for change

Reports on education and teaching

The year 1986 was a “watershed” year for teacher education. Two major
reports on teacher education appeared at that time (Carnegie Forum
1986; Tomorrow’s Teachers 1986). These reports evidence a general
failure in the American educational system. The blame for this decline
has been pointed directly at schools, teachers, and teacher educators. In
addition, the President’s Commission on Foreign Languages and Inter-
national Studies (1980) strongly criticized second language education.
In short, the situation described in these documents is seen as reprehen-
sible and requires “immediate” fixing. There have been many suggestions
for improving the situation, including suggestions for second language
education (Lambert 1987; Lange 1987a).
Both the Carnegie Forum and the Holmes Group provide recommen-
dations for the renewal of teacher education. While their major rec-
ommendations are similar, they differ in the concepts of differentiated
245
Dale L. Lange

staffing, certification, financial elements, and implementation. Only the

general flavor of the recommendations of these reports is given here.
The Carnegie and Holmes reports argue for the elimination of un-
dergraduate teacher education, offering it only at a graduate level. They
both contend that professional schools of education must develop rig-
orous standards for entrance into teacher education. They also discuss
the need for career ladders and a national board of standards that would
examine the competency of teachers. They recommend ways in which
teachers can become more professional — in particular, by associating
university programs closely with schools. In this way, developing teach-
ers in a university program can relate theory to practice in actual schools.
Both reports agree that professional autonomy, authority, and respon-
sibilities of classroom teachers must increase greatly.

Research on the effective teacher

As an outgrowth of concern in the sixties that “‘teachers didn’t matter,”
a twenty-year period of research evolved that examined teacher effec-
tiveness and other aspects of schooling. Hawley et al. (1984) summarized
research on effective teaching, school leadership, the learning environ-
ment, learning resources, and parental involvement. In a section on
effective teaching, the authors characterized the coaction of several
groups of teacher strategies as “effective” in developing successful stu-
dent learning. They suggested that these teacher strategies may be highly
significant to second language education because they mesh positively
with the tasks (Candlin and Murphy 1987) required for students to learn
and function with any aspect of the four syllabi conceived as being
important for second language programs (Stern 1983). In other words,
these strategies respond more fully to the interaction of teaching and
learning than any single “method.” Further, the applicability of these
strategies may be important in any educational context.
According to Hawley et al. (1984), effective teachers function with
five different yet interacting categories of behavior that direct student
attention to learning. First, effective teachers engage students with ac-
ademic learning time, where learning time signifies that portion of al-
located time in which students are successful at working on tasks that
are associated with desired outcomes (Fisher et al. 1978).
In the second category, effective teachers credit student learning that
meets desired outcomes. Ultimately, all students desire to be praised for
their work, and all students probably desire to be successful. Effective
teachers combine these two wishes. They find a way to reward all students,
binding successful performance on specific tasks to desired outcomes and
goals. The rewards can be provided in competitive, cooperative, or indivi-
dualized learning situations, according to type of task.
246
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

Third, effective teachers engage students interactively. Teachers using

this strategy direct student attention to the task(s) to be completed;
enthusiastically, they explain what, how, and with what expectations
the material is to be learned. As the student proceeds with the task, the
teacher monitors progress and decides either to continue or to adjust
instruction. Teacher assistance is always available. Students are rewarded
for completing the task and are informed of the progress that must still
be made. This circle of interconnected teacher behaviors has proved
most important, but may be limited when requiring students to learn
more than basic skills and information. Cognitive and metacognitive
behaviors may be required for higher-order learning (Jones et al. 1987;
Marzano et al. 1988). In addition, students need to understand the
learning process. For example, they need to be able to access knowledge;
understand how to use prior knowledge; and have the metacognitive
skills to monitor and adjust their performance (i.e., apply corrective
strategies) if their initial procedures are inappropriate. Similar kinds of
behavior will be required of second language students with the com-
municative syllabus. As an example, Tarone (1980) outlines categories
and subcategories of paraphrase, transfer, and avoidance which fit into
the kind of strategies people need and may learn in attempting to com-
municate orally. O’Malley, Chamot, and Walker (1987) discuss the
application of cognitive processes to second language acquisition in a
broader form. Second language education is beginning to realize that
not all aspects of language learning and acquisition can be explained
through a linguistic examination of the issues. Richards (this volume,
Chapter 1) particularly recognizes the contribution of research on teach-
ing to teacher preparation in this regard.
In a fourth category, effective teachers maintain and communicate
high expectations for student performance. Teachers apply this behavior
to all students. In other words, effective teachers communicate not only
to the “good” students but consistently to all students that they will be
treated fairly. The indication is that everyone will share in the learning
resources, particularly instructional time and the opportunity to perform.
Finally, effective teachers maximize learning time by the use of in-
structional settings appropriate to the tasks being pursued. Effective
teachers analyze both the tasks and their students to determine whether
the task is best handled by large groups, small groups, or individually.
The resulting decision helps determine an appropriate instructional strat-
egy or constellation of strategies. .

The reflective teacher

A reflective teacher knows the art and craft of teaching, and considers
it carefully both during and after interaction with students. As used here,
247
Dale L. Lange

the craft of teaching relates to the teacher’s specific knowledge of the

subject matter, knowledge on teaching that subject matter, and knowl-
edge on teaching in general. The art of teaching involves the combination
of knowledge and experience in the many decisions that teachers make
as they interact with learners. Reflection on teaching occurs both during
and after teaching, as teachers think about the decisions they make and
will make. The important question is how both the art and craft of the
reflective teacher are transmitted to those who intend to teach.
In most traditional teacher development programs, the only form of
“reflective teaching” is student teaching. Student teaching may last any-
where from three to ten weeks in undergraduate programs to an entire
year in a graduate internship. Reflecting upon teaching, as a specific
task, may not take place in a systematic fashion, however. Some pro-
grams employ microteaching, where single learning tasks are prepared
and taught to students or are simulated with peers (Clifford, Jorstad,
and Lange 1977) as preparation for student teaching. The practice may
not be widespread, but it does involve more direct preparation, planning,
and thinking about teaching. Both kinds of clinical experience could
potentially include more extensive reflection on the act of teaching.
Within the framework of clinical or laboratory experiences in teacher
development, there are two approaches to reflective teaching. One is
technocratic, the other more philosophic. Reflective Teaching as technoc-
racy (note the capital letters) is a specific approach used by Cruickshank,
Holton, and their colleagues (1981) and Cruickshank (1985). It consti-
tutes teaching one or more of thirty-six fifteen-minute lessons, unrelated
to any school subject matter, to four to six peers. The teacher then
evaluates the extent to which the peers learn and determines the value
of the teaching/learning experience. This process is somewhat mechanis-
tic, focusing specifically on what happened in teaching, why it happened,
and how else the goals of the lesson could have been achieved.
A more philosophical approach to reflective teaching (note the absence
of capital letters) is suggested by Gore (1987). While responding to the
more empirical/analytical approach of Cruickshank, Gore elucidates the
positive characteristics of reflective teaching that apply to any teaching
situation. When applied to second language education, this “process”
can be conveyed as the integration of several areas of knowledge and
practice, exemplified by certain characteristics, listed below. Reflective
teaching requires the interaction of:

1. Competence in a second language

— ability to listen, read, speak, and write in the language to be taught
— knowledge about language, language use, and culture, and their
interrelationship
— knowledge of how second languages are learned and acquired

248
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

Ze Understanding of how the target language is taught

— knowledge of both the theoretical and practical bases for teaching
any subject
— knowledge of both the theoretical and practical bases for language
teaching and learning in schools
. Practice in the application of knowledge about the subject and teach-
ing in teaching situations
— planning how to teach about language, language use and culture
in an integrated fashion
— development of alternatives in teaching any aspect of language,
language use, and culture, and their interrelationship
— practice in teaching the integration of language knowledge, lan-
guage use, and culture through peer teaching, tutoring, micro-
teaching, and student teaching
Opportunities to reach an understanding of both the art and the craft
of teaching
— observation of how others teach in tutoring, peer-teaching, mi-
croteaching, and student-teaching situations
— discussion of the observations in an environment where experi-
mentation and error is the norm, where risk-taking is encouraged
and expected
— discussions that relate theoretical assumptions about language,
culture, teaching in general, and language teaching to actual
situations
— discussions that relate the personal values and assumptions of
teachers to their assumptions about teaching
— discussions that relate the climate and culture of the particular
school to teaching individual students and groups
— opportunities to replan, reteach, and reevaluate lessons taught after
examination and discussion
Evaluation of teaching
— examination of the appropriateness of assumptions about teaching
strategies for the particular school, individual students, and groups
— knowledge and use of existing tools for the evaluation of student
progress in learning and use of language
— knowledge and use of the several means for the examination of
the effectiveness of teaching
— knowledge and use of the means by which the effectiveness of
teaching is examined in a particular school context

The interaction of these five elements of the reflective process benefits

developing teachers, inservice teachers, administrators, students, and
parents — all of whom interact with the school and community culture.
The reflective process allows developing teachers latitude to experiment
249
Dale L. Lange
within a framework of growing knowledge and experience. It gives them
the opportunity to examine their relations with students, their values,
their abilities, and their successes and failures in a realistic context. It
begins the developing teacher’s path toward becoming an “expert
teacher” (Berliner 1988).

“Professional development” — not “training”!

While the title of this section resembles sloganism, the concern it raises
is not easily dismissed. All of the issues associated with either the broad
or the narrow view of teaching as contained in the terms development
or training cannot be attended to here. A brief examination of the matter
will be sufficient to make it part of the context.
Teacher development is a term used in the literature to describe a
process of continual intellectual, experiential, and attitudinal growth of
teachers (e.g., Joyce and Weil 1980; Lange 1983; Sprinthall and Thies-
Sprinthall 1983), some of which is generated in preprofessional and
professional inservice programs. I have argued for the use of the term,
distinguishing it from training and preparation as encompassing more
and allowing for continued growth both before and throughout a career
(Lange 1983). The concept is similar to that of Larsen-Freeman’s (1983)
“educative process.” In using the term development, the intent here is
to suggest that teachers continue to evolve in the use, adaptation, and
application of their art and craft. It is the continuance of that evolution
that teacher education programs seek, but rarely establish.
In the never-ending reform of teacher education (Joyce and Weil 1972;
Soltis 1987), it appears that a different framework has materialized
recently (Keith 1987). Instead of a linear approach to the “problem,”
illustrated by the statement, “If you fix teacher education, you fix ed-
ucation in the schools,” Keith suggests an interactive framework instead.
This framework considers the structure and organization of schools, and
promotes schools as places in which to work and establish connections
among teacher education, teachers, schools, and learning. This context
allows renewal to proceed beyond the “usual more/less, longer/shorter,
harder (never easier), quantitative earlier reform proposals” (Keith 1987:
23);
In this context, teaching is directly connected with its use in schools.
The school—university relationship changes the nature of the questions
asked about teacher preparation; it focuses questions differently: “(How
can the school—university collaboration make experiences for developing
teachers more educative?” rather than “How much more of this [foun-
dations] or how much of that [clinical experiences] is needed to train a
teacher?” For example, instead of simply learning the elements of ef-
fective teaching, education students would use this knowledge as one

250
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

aspect in lesson and program planning, teaching, and examining the

results within the framework of the school, its curriculum, its culture,
and its environment. Schools would be used in which high levels of
responsibility for curricular control and decision making are clearly in
the hands of teachers. This would allow the teacher development pro-
gram, the developing teacher, other teachers, and the school system to
collaborate in teacher preparation. Such preparation would result from
directing critical decision making, reflective, and evaluative processes
toward the self, teaching, students, other teachers, the school culture
and environment, and the community. If successful, it can prepare a
teacher for continued growth. It would not require the teacher to choose
between what Jackson (1986: 104) has characterized as two important
historical trends within teaching, “learning to learn” and “‘choosing to
learn.” Huebner (1987: 21) might even say that such teachers would be
prepared for “the making of meanings and values.” In all of these senses,
teachers would be developed, not trained.
The context established here represents major shifts from the estab-
lished routine and expectations in teacher development. In part, these
shifts resulted from both political and social action, culminating in the
many reports on the quality of both education and teacher education,
as well as the several major recommendations for renewal. The shifts
are not only related to general forces, however, but to direction within
the profession itself. However, the final response ultimately rests with
the individual action of teachers.

Need for change in second language teacher

development

The need for change in teacher development in second languages is not

necessarily viewed any differently from that described in the previous
section. It simply has not been studied as carefully, as indicated by
Bernhardt and Hammadou (1987), who suggest that second language
educators know little about the process and the preparation of foreign
language teachers. If the ten years of literature examined in their review
(1977-87) can be used as a fairly accurate impression of the total picture,
the research data base in second language teacher education at all levels
is pitifully small. Some of the characteristics of the data base are as
follows:
1. Seventy-eight articles were written on foreign and second language
teacher education in the years 1977—86, including English as a second
language (ESL). The topics of these articles included global position
statements, teacher behaviors, teaching assistant and university pro-
Zo1
Dale L. Lange
fessorial preparation for teaching, inservice opportunities, supervi-
sion, and methods course curricula.
Only eight of the seventy-eight articles were data-based research.
ed Of 129 potential citations on teacher education in the first two edi-
tions of the American Education Research Association’s Handbook
of Research on Teaching (Gage 1963; Travers 1973), only references
to two researchers in those volumes appear in the second language
teacher education literature during this decade, those being to John
B. Carroll-and Barak Rosenshine. Further, while there were articles
on foreign language education in first and second editions of this
handbook (Carroll 1963; Birkmaier 1973), the third edition (Wit-
trock 1986) does not contain such information, but does include one
article on bilingual education (Filmore and Valadez 1986). None of
the three editions of this important publication devotes a specific
chapter to the teaching of or the preparation of teachers for ESL.

Bernhardt and Hammadou conclude from their analysis that minimal

attention is paid to the development of teachers in second languages
either conceptually or research-wise. Since both the number of topics
and the depth of penetration into those topics in teacher development
in their survey is limited, there has to be concern for the quality of
preparation of teachers at all levels.
In many senses, second language teacher development is not a unified
field. It is separated into at least two basic approaches, as represented
by ESL and foreign language education. The ESL approach is basically
theoretical in nature, somewhat an artifact of history, although it has
attitudinal ideological aspects. As the need for ESL teachers became more
crucial in the late 1960s, formal programs for teacher preparation de-
veloped within departments of linguistics, not departments of education.
The programs reflect, therefore, the nature of that environment. Richards
and Hino (1983), in a survey of master’s graduates working in Japan,
found that the most frequently studied courses in master’s programs
were structural linguistics, phonology, contrastive analysis, transfor-
mational grammar, and first and second language acquisition. By con-
trast, little attention was apparently given to “education” topics:
curriculum development, instructional practice, and evaluation. Attitude
has played a large role in determining such emphasis. Because, as a field,
Education draws from a variety of areas of inquiry, and because it has
a history of shortcomings in applying such inquiry, it has been avoided
in favor of Linguistics, which has been perceived as a science that could
be directly applied to language teaching. It would ensure “thigh quality”
preparation of ESL teachers. The connection to Education was not made.
At least one aspect of ESL teacher development could not be avoided,
however. The clinical experiences practicum seems to be an integral

2S2:
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

aspect of ESL graduate programs. Another survey (Richards and Crookes

1987), this time directed toward institutes of higher education that of-
fered graduate programs in ESL, assessed the nature of the practicum.
The study confirmed that a wide variety of clinical experiences were in
use, that their importance was being increasingly recognized, and that
their effectiveness has yet to be determined. These experiences seem to
provide the main opportunity to translate the theoretical learning of
students in these programs into practical application for the classroom.
Although the study did not specifically examine the amount of time
given to clinical experiences, that time may be limited, particularly in
graduate programs. As a result, teachers may be learning more “‘on the
job.”
Teacher development in ESL is also offered at the undergraduate level,
although the largest numbers of programs are probably at the graduate
level. But it is probably fair to characterize programs at both levels as
theoretically oriented toward linguistics and language acquisition with
but a modicum of attention given to teaching and learning.
Foreign language teacher development has similar shortcomings. It
has a basic orientation to methods of teaching. Unfortunately, the latest
bandwagon “methodologies” come into prominence without much
study or understanding, particularly those that appear easiest to im-
mediately apply in the classroom or those that are supported by a par-
ticular “guru.” Although concern for method is certainly not a new issue
(Kelly 1969), the current attraction to “method” stems from the late
1950s, when foreign language teachers were falsely led to believe that
there was a method to remedy the “language teaching and learning
problems.” Audiolingualism is no longer the reigning theory of language
learning (Blair, 1982; Oller and Richard-Amato, 1983; Larsen-Freeman
1986), but it has been deeply ingrained in foreign language teachers’
routines as basic practice. The obsession with methods makes the con-
nection between university teacher development programs difficult, par-
ticularly in clinical experiences aspects, because the practice in schools
is different from the more theoretical and “up-to-date” approach of
college/university teacher development programs.
Foreign language teacher development has its own attitudinal prob-
lem, particularly in relation to linguistics. Theory of language acquisi-
tion, the application of linguistic knowledge to language teaching, and
the relationship of psychology to linguistics are not necessarily viewed
as important to foreign language teachers. The excuse often given is that
these fields apply to teaching ESL and to ESL students, but not to foreign
language learning. “That body of research and theory doesn’t apply to
us; our classrooms are totally different,” is the claim. An example of
this attitude can be seen as foreign language teachers struggle against
the concept of communicative competence.
253.
Dale L. Lange

Whether there are specific data to demonstrate the extent or quality

of clinical experiences, foreign language educators pride themselves on
the practice opportunities they offer developing teachers. In other words,
the feeling is that foreign language teacher education gives developing
teachers plenty of practice in developing their art and craft before they
are hired in a school. Some of these opportunities come from require-
ments for observation, tutoring, and microteaching in courses of general
introduction to teaching, but these same processes and those of peer
teaching and student teaching are also part of the program of “practice”
specifically related to the foreign language program. In spite of the per-
ception of foreign language educators, the suspicion of this writer is that
if the situation were to be studied (cf. Richards and Crookes 1987),
many of the same practices and vagaries would be found. Foreign lan-
guage education should not boast.
There are many similarities and some differences between ESL and
foreign language education. It is not being argued that they merge, but
that they “touch” each other. The benefits of such a connection could
be helpful in at least three ways. ESL and foreign language specialists
could:
1. Direct efforts to considerations of and research into the nature of
the effective teacher in second languages;
2. Devise and examine models of developing effective teachers;
3. Explore ways in which the effects of teaching on learning in either
field could be more readily shared and discussed.
These kinds of undertakings could help both fields understand teacher
development better and contribute to a broader knowledge base. Both
fields have much to learn from each other. Some consolidation of effort
between them could strengthen both.
The remainder of this chapter is devoted to the development of a
model in second language education, its application, and evaluation.

The model: general framework

In their two articles, Mulkeen and Tetenbaum (1987; Tetenbaum and

Mulkeen 1986) discuss six very broad characteristics of the future “‘tech-
nological society.”” From these characteristics, implications are drawn
for teacher education,.and a model of teacher development is organized
on nine core features.

Characteristics
1. The twenty-first century will be knowledge-based. Social problems
will be highly complex (hunger, overpopulation, needs for and supply
254
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

of energy, urban decay, etc.). Thus the issue for society as a whole must
be on how to organize to make wise, informed, and intelligent decisions.
2. The twenty-first century will see an increased information flow.
Scientific and technological knowledge doubles every 5.5 years. An over-
view of the contribution of research in instructional methods and con-
ditions to knowledge about classroom learning (Walberg, Schiller, and
Haertel 1979) relates positive results from over 2,000 controlled studies.
Some of these results are being used in classroom teaching. Since 1979,
however, there are about 4,000 more that have not been considered.
3. The twenty-first century will see rapid change and impermanence.
Individuals will never be able to “complete” their education. They will
also not expect to enter a job or profession and remain in it without
retraining.
4. The twenty-first century will see an increase in decentralization of
organization, institutions, and systems. Societal structures from business
and industry to religious institutions and schools will experience decen-
tralization of power, because problems are generally solved in groups
of people who collaborate and share expertise and perspectives.
5. The twenty-first century will be people-oriented. People are the
nation’s most important asset. Individuals’ need for self-determination
and input into the decision-making processes that affect them are im-
portant for the cultivation of experimentation, innovation, and individ-
ual entrepreneurship in our culture.
6. The twenty-first century will see major demographic shifts. This
condition is particularly true for the United States’ ethnic and racial
composition. The single largest, fastest-growing minority population in
the country is Hispanic in origin. The differential birthrate suggests that
the United States will produce more blacks, fewer whites, as many His-
panics as blacks, and more Asians.

Implications
1. The teaching profession must attract some of the “best and brightest.”
Entrance standards to teacher education programs must be rigorous.
2. Teachers will have to become facilitators, not repositories of knowl-
edge. They will need preparation in a variety of alternatives in ped-
agogy and curriculum development (Schubert 1986).
3. Lifelong learning must be a construct in every teacher development
program.
4, Experimentation, risk taking, autonomy, and flexibility must be key
elements in the development of a model of schooling that places
responsibility for learning on students, giving them freedom to try,
test, innovate, and create.
255)
Dale L. Lange

53 Schools must allow teachers to take responsibility for professional

decisions that affect:the classroom.
6. Teacher development programs must be more responsive to the needs
of minority students in multicultural settings.

A model and its core features

From these characteristics and implications, Tetenbaum and Mulkeen
(1986) develop nine core features. The model accounts for a continuing,
integrated program of teacher development in several teaching centers.
These features are as follows:
1. Field-based. Preservice teacher development takes place on-site in
schools, in cooperation with collegiate teacher development pro-
grams; such schools are known as teaching centers.
Problem-centered. The theory and the practice of a curricular and
instructional program are organized around the resolution of iden-
tified, real problems in actual classes, in real schools.
. Technology-driven. Computers, videotape, videodisk, and satellite
hookup are key components of a problem-resolving mode of instruc-
tion in providing an informational data base, the means for analyzing
that information through a variety of spreadsheets, and the means
for sharing decisions through word processors.
Experimental sharing. In this model, neophyte and experienced teach-
ers, master teachers, college/university supervisors, and professorial
staff share in the identification and organization of resolutions to
curricular and instructional problems.
. Developmental. The teacher development instructional program
meets the needs of an increasingly sophisticated developing
professional.
. Competency-based. The teacher development instructional program,
while focusing on the resolution of curricular and instructional prob-
lems, is oriented toward knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are
appropriate to each experiential level identified, taught, practiced,
and evaluated.
Expertly staffed. Problem resolution in such a program comes about
because of a constellation of staff who work together: school staff,
university faculty, representatives of agencies, consultants from the
community, and the like.
. Critical mass. A-high concentration of professional staff within a
school setting whose responsibility is to develop teachers through
problem resolution using risk taking and experimentation makes the
process possible.
Open-ended. The open-endedness of the model suggests that profes-
sional development is never-ending and lifelong.

256
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

Center2

Center1

p Career | Continuing
re | Graduate | ladder | professional
ses skills development

Center3

Figure 1 Mulkeen and Tetenbaum’s model for an integrated teacher

development program. Centers 2 and 3 signify a replication of Center
1 in other contexts. (Reprinted with permission of educational HORI-
ZONS quarterly journal published by Pi Lambda Theta national
honor and professional association, Bloomington, Ind.)

Figure 1 demonstrates the application of several principles and core

features of the model.

The second language frarnework

Lange (1979) outlines seven principles that apply to the development

of both pre- and inservice teachers. In addition, the American Coun-
cil on the Teaching of Foreign Languages 1987 teacher education
guidelines are briefly reviewed. Both contribute to the second lan-
guage framework.
1. Teacher self-selection and teacher selection are ongoing processes.
The process of teacher selection is based upon information about the
applicant (grade point averages, IQ, language proficiency, personality,
teaching aptitude, evidence of work with children), preprofessional coun-
seling, and a decision-making process whereby a team of faculty mem-
bers and the candidate make the final decision for entrance.
2. Teachers are cognitively and experientially aware of the intellectual,
scientific, and artistic history of their world. Before their selection as
preservice teachers, individuals should demonstrate knowledge of and
experience with different categories of the intellectual, scientific, and
artistic endeavors of humankind. A broad liberal arts background, ori-
Dele
Dale L. Lange
ented toward the language and culture of the major, contributes to an
understanding of the native and the nonnative cultures.
3. Teachers are proficient in the language and are experienced in the
cultural environments of the language they teach. There is general agree-
ment that teachers need to be competent in the four language skills
(listening, reading, speaking, writing). Advanced language competence
in all language skills cannot be accomplished in the university classroom.
Work, travel, living, and/or study experiences in a setting where the
language is used could provide opportunities for the development of
such competence. Such experiences would also necessitate confronting
another culture and force students to focus on their feelings, attitudes,
and beliefs about their own culture. Similarly, some experience with the
learning of a second language should also be a sine qua non for ESL
teachers.
4. Teachers are knowledgeable about processes to help students de-
velop their own experience with the cultural environments of the lan-
guage(s) they are learning. Lange (1979) has described a ten-item process
for handling the resolution of differences in attitude, Weltanschauung,
and perceptions created by the meeting of two cultures. This process
has been further described by Crawford-Lange and Lange (1984).
5. Teachers examine developments in second language teaching and
learning through experience in order to understand both cognitively and
affectively the implications of those developments for students. In order
that understanding of the continuing development of foreign language
teaching develop, a framework of language teaching is constructed to
situate developments into appropriate roles. In this manner, theoretical
constructs and research findings in language learning, acquisition, and
teaching can be examined in relation to practice. This framework can
serve to organize the clinical experiences portion of any preservice
teacher development program. Teachers need to know and understand
the connections between theory and practice. They also need to expe-
rience these associations through a program of clinical experiences, such
as microteaching, tutoring, observation, peer observation, and student
teaching, where reflection can be exercised.
6. Teachers and students contribute to a growing understanding of
language teaching. In creating “‘the professional teacher,” development
programs help their clients create a classroom climate where dialogue
between teacher and students is important to the resolution of personal,
social, and learning problems. Such a climate is especially important to
language learning. Dialogue can become a source of “data” that can
help determine what works in helping students voice their opinions,
feelings, and perceptions. In this regard, teachers and students learn from
each other.
7. The student-teacher relationship allows for both student and

258
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

teacher to understand each other’s needs and goals in developing a

program of second language study. Some modification of the industrial
or product model of education must emerge relatively quickly, because
concentration on the knowable, observable, and achievable does not
prepare students to cope with the processes, the results, and the uses of
change that determine today’s culture in the United States. There is
overemphasis in U.S. culture on a model of accountability that does not
fit the development of higher-order thinking, emotional maturity, and
a system of values for our students. Likewise in learning a foreign lan-
guage, the product model leads to low-level functioning in grammar:
rules, vocabulary, memorized language.
Another concern is that teachers dominate students; only teachers
know what is best, what should be learned. Here, a resolution is pro-
posed based on the work of Freire (1970, 1973). It is described in a very
general sense. In this approach to learning, teachers and students have
equal importance, although their experience and input may be different.
Teachers provide opportunity, resources, support, encouragement, and
expertise. Students have the major decision-making role in determining
what to learn in order to empower their lives. Both students and teachers
function in a climate where social and personal problems find resolution
by the group; the atmosphere is helpful and respectful; resolutions are
not imposed.
Using this model, the goals of a program of language and culture
learning (Crawford-Lange and Lange 1984) are determined through
dialogue between students and teacher. The goals would actually relate
to the problems posed for the students by the culture and its most
important means of expression, language. In this way, the understanding
of another culture through language becomes the major purpose for
foreign language learning. But most of all, there is balance between the
product orientation and the need to process the product into a broader
context: Language is placed in its original context, which comprises both
a specific as well as a broader cultural base.
A more specific set of guidelines for teacher education is being prepared
by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. The
last important statement of this kind was developed by Paquette (1966).
In draft form, the guidelines focus on three basic areas: personal, profes-
sional, and specialist development. Personal development includes com-
munication skills, acquisition and use of knowledge, and leadership.
Professional development involves an understanding of the need for
foreign language study, of child development and learning, curriculum
development, instruction and the instructional setting, and foreign lan-
guages in the elementary school. The guidelines for specialist develop-
ment focus on language proficiency, culture and civilization, and
language analysis. Although not yet approved or widely discussed, these
252
Dale L. Lange

guidelines will be useful to institutions as yet another framework for

developing second language teachers.

The resulting program

Having presented the characteristics of society in the twenty-first century,
implications for teacher development, and a responding model, we now
turn to a more concrete, though only partial, response: a postbaccalau-
reate program of teacher development at the University of Minnesota,
Twin Cities Campus. Offered in the 1986—7 academic year by the Second
Languages and Cultures Education program, this model is only partial
because it is still in development. It was initiated in the fall quarter of
1987. It represents only a preservice phase (Lange 1987b). This model
program not only provides professional preparation, but also allows for
research within the process of such development. The resultant “data
base” can be used to examine teachers as they develop within the pro-
gram, and also for follow-up studies on developing and continuing
teacher competence. The data base also allows for a detailed evaluation
of program effectiveness.
Another important general feature of this program is that it has not
been targeted to any one specific language. Programs in many universities
relate only to the development of teachers in one language. Because
teacher development in second languages at the University of Minnesota
is located in the College of Education and not in a language department,

|
|
|
|
|
|
| Debriefing on |
|
c |Clinical clinical experiences |
ntrance
: | experiences
; |
requirements (nial : 2 oe
and decision foundations | | mere
making |Research Further |examinations
| project | contextualization |
|of clinical |
|experiences |
| |
|
|
|
Figure 2 A school-based center.

260
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

TABLE I. TIME LINE FOR POSTBACCALAUREATE PROGRAM

First summer Academic school year Final summer

(3 months) (9 months) (3 months)
Educational On-site clinical experiences Remaining state
foundations Second language teacher requirements
Courses to meet preparation courses Debriefing
general state Special topics seminars Exit exams
requirements Reflection and debriefing Research report
seminars

the same program serves the most commonly taught languages: French,
German, Spanish, and ESL taught in schools in the United States. It also
accommodates Chinese, Hebrew, Japanese, Latin, Russian.
The model has the following basic elements: Entrance Requirements,
Educational Foundations, Clinical Experiences, Research Component,
and Exit Requirements (see Figure 2).

General description of the program

A postbaccalaureate program should be at the graduate level and it
should concern the development of teachers who are mature enough to
experience the relationship of theory to practice and who are profes-
sionally capable of resolving questions related to that experience. In its
current form, the program is fifteen months long. Students begin course-
work in June of one year and finish in August of the second year. The
two summer sessions at the beginning of the course build foundations
upon which the nine-month clinical experiences are built. In the nine-
month period from September to June, the Second Languages and Cul-
tures program offers courses and experiences that are committed to the
development of competencies in analyzing and resolving questions of
both a curricular and instructional nature. Such questions are addressed
through on-site courses, seminars, and clinical experiences conducted
and supported by master teachers, university supervisors, classroom
teachers, and university professorial staff. Some foundational work fol-
lows the clinical experiences portion of the program during the follow-
ing summer, allowing for practice to inform theory. Table 1 summarizes
the stages of the program. Licensure is recommended at the end of
this program. Many of the credits amassed will apply to a Master of
Education degree, the details for which have not as yet been fully
worked out.
261
Dale L. Lange

Program elements
I. ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS AND DECISION MAKING

Program admission criteria can serve to evaluate the development of

teachers within the program as well as predict success beyond program
completion. Those who apply have already completed a Bachelor of Arts
degree with a major in the language they intend to teach. Entrance
decisions are made by a committee of faculty in the program area and
admissions counselors. The decision for acceptance is based on a con-
stellation of qualities:
1. Preprofessional skills. The Preprofessional Skills Test battery, de-
veloped by the Educational Testing Service, responds to the State Board
of Teaching mandate that all teachers must be competent in the basic
skills of reading, writing, and computation.
2. General aptitude. To meet this requirement, applicants must take
the Miller Analogies Test, a test of general verbal ability.
3. A writing sample. All applicants must respond to a similar set of
general questions relating to why they have chosen teaching as their
career, and particularly why they chose to teach a second language.
4. Grade point average. Applicants must have a minimum of 2.8
overall and 3.0 in the major.
5. Pre-education preparation. The Bachelor of Arts degree with a
major in a language is the basic requirement. However, if applicants
have had extensive study .(1—5 years) in a context where they have used
the language in which they are to be licensed, and can prove the required
proficiency, they are considered viable applicants. For applicants in ESL,
the situation is generally more complicated. If applicants have not pur-
sued courses leading to licensure either as undergraduates or before
admission to the postbaccalaureate program, they must fulfill specific
requirements for licensure during the program.
6. Background experience. Persons applying to the program are re-
quired to have worked with children or adolescents in youth groups of
various kinds: church, community, recreation.
7. Second language proficiency. Before consideration for admission,
applicants must be tested in the language they are going to teach. ESL
applicants whose native language is not English are given an ACTFL-
type oral interview. They are the only ESL applicants tested in this
manner.
8. Cultural awareness. Through transcripts and other evidence, ap-
plicants demonstrate awareness of the country (countries) where the
second language is used. First priority for entrance is given to those
applicants who have actual living or study experiences in a country where
the language is used.

262
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

There is a single application date in the academic year. For 1987-8,

there were twenty-seven applications. Twelve students were admitted
and nine chose to participate. They were distributed in the following
manner: one ESL, three German, two French, and three Spanish.

2. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

An indication of the “becoming” nature of the postbaccalaureate pro-

grams at the University of Minnesota is found in the concept of edu-
cational foundations. There is some agreement on what the content of
the foundations might be, but the delivery system has not yet been
determined. The topics below represent the content.
regularly scheduled courses
+

= second language courses

3

*** = special seminars

Computer Literacy***/*
Concepts of Learning Important in Schooling: Cognitive, Affective,
Psychomotor*
Culture and Role of Schools in American Society*
Curriculum of Schooling: Contents, How Developed**
Classroom Management and Organization**
Getting into the Profession: Job Interviews, Placement Service, Resumes,
and the Like***
Drug Awareness*
Effective Teaching/Effective Schools* **
Exceptional Children*
Evaluation of Learning and Its Interpretation**/*
Human Interaction in Schooling* */*
Multicultural Education** */* */*
Nature of Adolescents / Young Adults in Relation to Schooling*
Personal Wellness: Emotional, Physical*
Professionalism: Personal, Ethical, and Legal Issues*
Students, How Are They Similar/Different?: Behaviorally, Intellectually,
Physically, Sexually, Socially*
How Do We Prepare for Them Instructionally?**/*
Processes of Research in Education***/*
Some of these topics are mandated by the legislature through the State
Board of Teaching: multicultural education, exceptional children, drug
awareness, personal wellness, and human interaction in schooling.

3. CLINICAL EXPERIENCES

The courses, seminars, and clinical experiences in Second Languages and

Cultures are offered on-site, within a school district. They comprise an
263
Dale L. Lange

TABLE 2. CLINICAL EXPERIENCES, SECOND LANGUAGES AND CULTURES

Level Activity Content

1. Awareness Observation Classroom process
Student—teacher interaction
2. Practice pee il Management: classroom,
pie eae Medea crt $ instructional, curricular
activities planing
Microteaching: student, Curricular and instructional
peer
goals and student outcomes
3. Induction Student teaching Evaluation of learning
achievement — proficiency
Evaluation of instruction

academic year-long course on the examination of curricular and instruc-

tional problems with second language teaching and learning, a seminar
for clinical experiences, and a seminar on special topics. Examples of
the content of the latter include the student research project; current
research on listening, reading, speaking, and writing in second language
education; and the teaching of reading to non-English proficient students
for the ESL group.
The clinical experiences program, displayed in Table 2, consists of
three phases: awareness, practice, and induction. In the awareness phase,
students observe students learning and teachers teaching, not only in
language courses, but throughout the entire curriculum. Program par-
ticipants are also required to closely examine the culture of the com-
munity and its relationship to the district. In the practice phase, teachers
tutor one-on-one, lead small groups, and microteach (both peer groups
and in class). In the induction phase, teachers are responsible for both
the curriculum and the instructional program over two six-week periods.
In these contexts, developing teachers learn to resolve the teaching and
learning problems they face on the practical level through strategies
suggested from a theoretical framework, as well as by their peers and
experienced colleagues. They learn to evaluate themselves through these
same processes and strategies. The clinical experiences seminar is heavily
involved in reviewing the observations students make in these phases.
The intensity of the three phases of clinical experiences is visualized in
Figure 3.
a

4. THE RESEARCH COMPONENT

Since the program is at the graduate level, students are required to

complete a project that examines the relationship of theory to practice,
using a chosen research mode. In this regard, students complete a re-
search project of their own choosing. In that project, they demonstrate

264
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

Intensity
level

Awareness
———- Practice
—e— |nduction

Sept. Jan. June

Figure 3. Relative intensity of the three levels in the total clinical

experiences.

their understanding of research processes in the resolution of a teaching/

learning or curricular problem. The process includes the determination
of a problem, the relation of the problem to a theoretical as well as a
practical background, the design of a study, the gathering and analysis
of data to demonstrate the resolution of the problem, a statement of
resolution, and a formal report of the process. This component is part
of the nine-month academic year program in a school setting. In this
first year students are examining issues important to them, including the
relationship of homework to success in language learning, the relation-
ship of time spent in a job outside school to success in language learning,
and the effect of different kinds of written feedback from the teacher to
the student who is writing in English.

5. EXIT EXAMINATION

The exit examinations for the first year of the program were contex-
tualized, simulated problems. They required students to bring theoret-
ical, practical, and experiential knowledge together for the resolution of
the problems posed. Although students were given choices among prob-
lems, they were required to deal with situations that involved instruction,
curriculum, evaluation, and research. These examinations required writ-
ten responses only. There was no oral examination.

The team
A team of university and school personnel runs the program. That team
includes Second Languages and Cultures Education staff, two University
265
Dale L. Lange

of Minnesota teacher supervisors, one of whom coordinates the clinical

experiences seminar, a school postbaccalaureate coordinator who is a
teacher in the school district, and cooperating teachers in different lan-
guages in the various schools of the district.
In establishing the necessary cooperation from the school district for
the creation of the partnership, the following arrangements were made.
The school postbaccalaureate coordinator is released from duty on a
“one hour each day”’ basis to make arrangements, observe students, and
communicate with cooperating teachers and university personnel. Co-
operating teachers are rewarded with university credit for their partic-
ipation in the program, including an ongoing seminar where the
university and the school district personnel work diligently on problems
connected with the program and the partnership.

Research agenda
The postbaccalaureate program allows the faculty to focus on research
in teacher development. For long-term study, the focus of the questions
is On program and teacher development:
1. Within the predetermined characteristics of entrants to the program,
what are the qualities of each admitted cohort? How do different
cohorts of this program compare?
2. What is “effective teaching” in a second language?
3. What aspects of effective teaching contribute specifically to the prep-
aration of teachers in a second language?
4. Assuming that indicators of effective teaching in second languages
can be ascertained, do admission criteria have any predictability of
indicating teacher effectiveness after the program has been
completed?
5. What is the relationship of these same qualities to success in teaching
after initial licensure?
6. By what means do we evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher devel-
opment program?
7. What happens to those licensed in second languages once they have
completed the program? Are they still effective teachers at one, three,
five, and ten years later? Why? Why not?
aA

Evaluating the program and the process

By what means can we evaluate such programs? It is useful to compare

the postbaccalaureate program to elements of the models of Mulkeen
and Tetenbaum, and Lange. Further evaluation of the curriculum as

266
 A blueprint for a teacher development program

indicated by Short (1987), as well as a more complete evaluation process

suggested by Cooper (1983), provide direction for the future.
One method of evaluating the process as translated into the program
described here is a logical one. Have the implications from the model
of Mulkeen and Tetenbaum and the principles stated by Lange been
included? A check of the program description and elements suggest at
least three deficiencies. Most of the other features of both models are
detected in the description of the program, its elements, staff, or research
agenda.
The first deficiency is related to a core feature of the Mulkeen and
Tetenbaum model. The University of Minnesota program is certainly
not technology-driven. Videotaping of students in classrooms is the only
element of technology used. In this regard, the program must decide
how it will work with technology in the future.
The second, mostly unfulfilled aspect is related to Mulkeen and Te-
tenbaum’s concern for the inclusion of minority students. This is a prob-
lem related to the demography of the state of Minnesota. There are only
Caucasians in the current program. Efforts are being made at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota to recruit more minority students in programs. This
subject is a matter for continuing concern.
The third imperfection in the program is Lange’s seventh principle,
which suggests a different kind of teacher—student relationship. Though
this aspect may be difficult to achieve in the climate of today’s schools,
it must be a strong candidate for ongoing consideration.
While this comparative approach to the evaluation of the University
of Minnesota program is momentarily convenient, it is obviously not
complete, largely because the program is new. Other evaluation pro-
cesses need to become part of this or any other attempt at the renewal
of teacher development. Although not intended as a curriculum evalu-
ation plan per se, Short (1987) enunciates a clear set of guidelines for
the development of teacher education curricula which could easily suffice
as elements of a curriculum evaluation process in this context. These
guidelines cluster under four categories which are interrelated: the for-
mulation and adoption of policies for the development of a teacher
education curriculum; the development and revision of a curriculum
plan; the conceptualization and design of a curriculum plan; and the
identification of a unifying concept or theme in the enactment of a
curriculum plan. These guidelines should be considered extremely useful
for
for the guidance and evaluation of any design and implementation
teacher education renewal.
ment
The Cooper (1983) approach to the evaluation of teacher develop
programs is of course broader than that derived from Short. The prop-
osition involves an examination of both the processes by which devel-
nt
opment occurs as well as expected outcomes, a “goal-attainme
267
 Dale L. Lange

approach.” Teachers who have been developed by the program are

examined at the beginning of the program to ascertain the current status
of their knowledge. Upon completion of the program, they are evaluated
again to locate deficiencies, for which a modified plan for the student
or for the program could be determined. Data to be collected for this
evaluation include teacher characteristics and demography, teaching ef-
fectiveness, program characteristics and effectiveness, school and com-
munity contextual information, and pupil outcomes. While this process
emphasizes the collection of hard data, the approach to evaluation is
one that is flexible enough to include information of a qualitative nature.

Conclusion: will it work?

The conditions relating to the development of teachers for the future

have been reviewed. The context has been set. Two sets of contributing
principles to that development have been examined. A general model of
teacher development has contributed to the specific development of a
preservice teacher development program in foreign language education,
the five basic elements of which have been displayed. All of these con-
- ditions, principles, and models are associated with the development of
future foreign language teachers. Many of these principles are not new.
In fact, they have been ideals of the past and have been discussed in the
literature. Here, they have been operationalized. It is upon this opera-
tionalization that we can build the future.
Will it work? Will the program described here succeed? This question
cannot be answered here, obviously. Teacher renewal faces many prob-
lems: lethargy, tradition, bureaucracy, and fear of change, among others.
But the context that has been portrayed argues solidly for different
directions. Those who are willing to take risks will provoke change. The
groundwork has been installed. The mood has been established. The
climate is right. Success can only be measured if the challenge is met.
Take the risks!

268
17 Developing teachers’ language
resources
Robert Keith Johnson

The traditional responsibilities of language teaching specialists in teacher

education, particularly in situations where language teachers are not
native speakers of the target language, involve methodology and instruc-
tion in the second language to raise the level of teachers’ second language
proficiency. A further responsibility, the subject of this chapter, should
be to help all teachers to use the language resources that they have as
effectively as possible in the classroom. Access to the knowledge, atti-
tudes, and skills embodied in the various subject area curricula is gained
with the aid of written and spoken discourse or not at all. If this essential
component in the educational enterprise is missing or nonfunctional,
nothing happens. A course that focuses on the effective use of language
in the classroom:should
sno therefore form an important part of the training _
of any teacher, whether of a first or second language; but it is crucial
where a second language is the medium of instruction, since in this case
the vital connection is most at risk.
This chapter outlines the underlying theory and the methodological
approach adopted in a program entitled ‘Classroom Language’, which
focuses upon language across the curriculum in a context where English
is widely used as the medium of instruction. The various kinds of ex-
ercises and communication tasks used in the program are also described
and illustrated.

The ‘Classroom Language’ programme

Classroom Language is a compulsory unit within a basic professional

training programme for secondary school teachers in all subject areas.’
It consists of fifteen contact hours, which are divided between language
laboratory and discussion sessions. Its aim is to make students aware of
the role language plays in the classroom, and although teachers are
expected to apply what they learn within their subject areas, the course
is not subject-specific. Similarly the course is not language-specific. The
1 ‘Classroom Language’ is a component of the Postgraduate Certificate of Education
ac-
programme of the Faculty of Education, Hong Kong University. I would like to
have all
knowledge the work of Penny Cameron, Rose Chan, and Cecilia Shek, who
made major contributions to the programme since its inception.

269
 Robert Keith Johnson
programme is conducted through English for teachers in English-medium
schools and in Chinese/Cantonese for teachers of Chinese and Chinese
History, and for teachers from Chinese-medium schools. The discourse
functions and principles introduced are assumed to be universal.

The teaching and learning approach

Most students enter the programme expecting to be taught English.

When it is clear that this is not our aim, there is the problem of differ-
entiating our work from that of the subject area specialists and others
concerned with methodology. Our colleagues, who do not have the
advantage of doing the course, find our intentions even more obscure.
They tend to believe that, whatever we may say, what we really do is
remedial language teaching; and if we don’t, then we should. The concept
of language across the curriculum, in second language teacher education
or elsewhere, still has a long way to go. We have to admit too that our
own understanding of our role has not always been as certain as it is
now. This gradual increase in confidence in what we are doing has been
reflected in a general movement away from the exploratory, almost
discovery-based approach with which we began, towards one which
uses models and examples and offers conclusions as well as experiences
and learning opportunities.
‘Foundations’ courses in the philosophy, sociology, and psychology
of education as well as specialists in methodology, general or subject-
related, are concerned in various ways with the role of the teacher, as
a person, as a member of society, within the school, and in the classroom.
The ideas presented in these courses interact with and are accommodated
to each teacher’s personality, experience, and preconceptions, and result
in a teaching style or a plan of action which the teacher seeks to im-
plement in the classroom. As language specialists we do not attempt to
influence the teachers’ intentions, or aims; rather we help them t
uate the relationship between intentions and their realisation in dis-
_course. If a teacher’s aim is to terrify his or her pupils into silence, we
might, as fellow educators, urge reasons for reconsideration, but in doing
so we would be moving beyond our primary role. The problem is usually
in the other direction. Teachers claim that their intention is to promote
an open, responsive, learner-centred, ‘democratic’ classroom learning
environment, but the language they useexplicitly or implicitly reinforces”
their authority and discourages learners from taking theinitiative. The
analysis of what is (and what is not) said in the classroom makes concrete
and specific an area which is usually discussed only in general and ab-
stract terms — that is, at the level of intention rather than realisation.
In relation to content, we are less likely to be tempted to go beyond

270
 Developing teachers’ language resources

our role. We are not experts in the various subject areas, and we must
rely on the teachers (our students) and the subject area specialists for
their advice on what should be taught and how. Our aim is to make
teachers aware that having the appropriate knowledge and intentions is
one thing; communicating them effectively through language is another.
The language of the learner is not dealt with formally in our pro-
gramme. ‘Pupil talk’ is presented in the modelled interactive exchanges,
and teachers role-play the parts of students in simulation exercises, but
our focus isnormally
on the language used by the teacher, which in the
context of our course can be modified, and not that of the pupil, which
cannot.
We also spend more time on spoken than on written language. Teach-
ers spend far more time speaking than they do writing; and as academ-
ically oriented people, teachers’ skills in relation to written texts are
often more highly developed than those relating to speech. Nevertheless
we are paying more attention now than in the past to the language of
textbooks or course books in particular, and to the ways in which
information is realised in written discourse in general. We feel that the
more aware teachers are of written discourse structure, the better they
will be at helping their pupils to process and produce it themselves.

The use of the language laboratory

Of the fifteen contact hours in the course, six are spent in the language
laboratory, with students engaged in various tasks. The remaining hours
are spent in discussion of issues raised by these tasks and the applications
of conclusions to particular subject areas.
The language laboratory exercises are necessarily artificial and con-
trived, but they have the advantage that thirty teachers can be engaged
simultaneously and intensively in what we hope are interesting and
challenging activities; and the language laboratory booths, though a
totally different environment from that of the classroom, serve to focus
attention very narrowly upon linguistic aspects of teaching.
The laboratory, a standard National model, has been modified so that
booths can be paired. This permits quite a wide range of communicative
and analytical tasks which would otherwise be impossible, and the teach-
ing materials are organised to take maximum advantage of this facility.
Students receive copies of one of two versions of the course booklet, A
_
or B, so that an information gap can be created and exploited where
appropriate. The types of organisation of tasks in the language labo-
ratory are summarised here:
1. Individualised work. With each booth under the control of the
individual concerned, students can record, rerecord, replay, and re-
271
Robert Keith Johnson

peat as they feel appropriate: for example, in preparing a set of

instructions, or following and evaluating the instructions prepared
by their partners. (Most tape preparation is done outside scheduled
contact hours.)
2. Classwork. Some of the tasks are conducted in a lockstep fashion,
with the lecturer controlling all booths from the console and using
a master tape as stimulus material. (In this mode of operation, stu-
dents are usually paired so that they can discuss what they hear and
conduct a joint evaluation.)
3. Pair work. Pair work includes role play and simulation exercises,
problem solving, communication gap activities, and periods for dis-
cussion and evaluation which may be as short as a few seconds or
as long as several minutes.
The existence of the language laboratory preceded that of the course,
and the (political) need to make use of it was initially more obvious
than any educational advantages. We have come to feel, however, that
without it the course would beless focused and less ‘data-driven’ than
it is at present.

The design of the teaching materials

In broad terms each exercise or task follows the stages of development,
practice, and application outlined here:
1. Development. Particular teaching acts are identified and commu-
nication tasks are prepared which depend crucially for their success
upon the effective performance of those teaching acts.
2. Practice. Teachers complete the communication tasks and evaluate
their performances.
3. Application. Teachers identify general principles governing the ef-
fective completion of such tasks and discuss ways of applying those
principles to their own teaching subjects.

The content of the teaching materials

When the course began, we intended to develop separate sets of ma-
terials for the various subject areas. We still recognise the importance
of demonstrating to teachers the relevance of the programme to their
needs, but for many purposes the use of subject-specific material sim-
ply does not work. In setting tasks in which communication is likely
to break down, we are attempting to simulate the situation which ex-
ists between the teacher, who knows, and the learner, who does not.
On tasks where two ‘knowers’ are working together, communication

ITD)
 Developing teachers’ language resources

does not break down, and the message that emerges for the teachers
is that there is no problem. As a result, we attempt to stay well clear
of expert knowledge our teachers may share, so that the success of
the communication tasks depends upon the effective use of language,
and not on ‘triggering’ knowledge which the hearer or reader already
possesses. The danger is that some teachers see the activities as ‘mere’
games, irrelevant to their professional interests and lacking serious
content or purpose. This makes the third design stage (Application)
essential, not only for the transfer of learning, but for the credibility
of the course as a whole.

The aspects of classroom language

We discuss classroom language under three major headings: one, the

physiological aspect, is obligatory, obviously enough, for any spoken
utterance, but each utterance may express either the interpersonal or
pedagogical intentions of the teacher, or both.

The physiological aspect

Despite advances in technology and current trends in educational theory,
the teacher’s voice is likely to remain a major educational resource. It
is minimally necessary for teachers to speak loudly and clearly enough
to be understood by large numbers of pupils in often noisy environments
and to produce their voices in a way which avoids physical and psy-
chological stress. Optimally, the teacher’s voice should be as rich and
as varied an instrument as an actor’s.
The physiological aspect of teacher talk used to receive more atten-
tion than it now does, for several possible reasons. ‘Elocution’ has
become unfashionable, an anachronism in a world in which non-
standard accents and different varieties of English have gained con-
siderable acceptance. Linguistic interest has shifted away from
articulation and towards cognition; and in teacher education, there
has been a shift in emphasis from teacher-centred to learner-centred
approaches, with the teacher as a manager of resources and facilita-
tor of learning. Focusing upon the teacher’s voice may seem almost
reprehensible from these perspectives.
The decline in interest in voice production is regrettable, however
laudable the changes which have brought it about. There is evidence
from Hong Kong and elsewhere that many teachers suffer from vocal
strain, that this affects their teaching and their general health, and that
they would welcome assistance (Cameron 1983). This is one of the areas
273
Robert Keith Johnson

in which applied linguists with the appropriate expertise have a great

deal to offer to teachers across the curriculum.

The interpersonal aspect

The interpersonal aspect of classroom discourse is divided into three
modes: control, organisation, and motivation: In crude terms, control
and organisation functions are realised in such utterances as ‘Stand up!’,
‘Sit down’, ‘Why are you late?’, and ‘Move into your discussion groups’.
Motivational functions are realised by such utterances as “Well done’
and ‘That was a good try’. The areas are not clearly differentiated: ‘Get
your homework in on time or there will be trouble’ could be regarded
as motivating, organising, or exercising control over a pupil. However,
‘managing’ the classroom and creating a classroom climate in which
students are willing and eager to learn are clearly important aspects of
a teacher’s work. What seems particularly interesting and revealing is
the inverse relationship which exists in the data between the overt man-
ifestation of these functions in the teachers’ language and the reality of
the situation — that is, repeated attempts to motivate indicate that mo-
tivation is poor; continuous attempts to control indicate poor discipline;
and the amount of time the teacher spends on management is a fair
indication of how effective the teacher is as a manager. (For example,
when ‘O.K., move into groups’ is sufficient, we know we are dealing
with a well-organised classroom. When we hear ‘O.K., move into groups.
No, don’t move your desk. No, Johnny, there’s no need to move your
desk. No more than four in a group. Your group is too big. Don’t move
your desks ...’, we know there will be very little effective time-on-task
in that classroom.)
One of the greatest difficulties faced by a new teacher, or an un-
successful one, is the lack of overt linguistic realisations in ‘good’
classrooms which the teacher could use as a model. The effective
teacher says, ‘Move into your groups’ and it happens. The new
teacher does exactly the same thing and chaos breaks out. In motiva-
tional terms too, precisely what teachers say and how they say it are
not necessarily important. Some ogres (judged on verbal behavior) are
not just respected but loved by their students. Actions in this context
speak louder than words. Nevertheless, talking is one way of show-
ing, and the teacher whose pupils moved into groups without prob-
lems did so because at some point clear instructions were given by
the teacher and were understood and accepted by the pupils. Simi-
larly, the belief amongst pupils that their efforts are appreciated may
not depend solely on the words of the teacher, but that belief is cer-
tainly reinforced by those words. Discussion of classroom language
data, aided by transcriptions, helps to develop teachers’ awareness

274
 Developing teachers’ language resources

and understanding of these issues, even though what is important

may be revealed more by what is not said than by what is.

The pedagogical aspect

Unlike the interpersonal aspect, in the pedagogical aspect of classroom
language, what you say is what you do. If a question is poorly expressed,
the most highly motivated students will not be able to answer it. Like-
wise, the fact that the teacher is known to have the best interests of the
students at heart may make a poorly expressed instruction easier to
tolerate, but it does not make it easier to understand and follow.
Each of the three pedagogical modes, operative, interactive, and in-
formative, is discussed in turn with examples of the types of tasks and
exercises used.

THE OPERATIVE MODE

The operative mode has three phases: framing, mediating, and evalu-
ating, with the boundaries between the phases marked by the teacher’s
‘directive’ and by the students’ ‘performance’. In the model we use, the
intention(s) of each utterance can be analysed functionally using a mod-
ified version of the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) and Sinclair and Brazil
(1982) frameworks for analysing classroom discourse.
The exercises here follow the general pattern described earlier fairly
closely: A problem is set; students attempt to solve the problem; they
evaluate the outcome and derive general principles which they then apply
to their subject area.
In one task, the students in each pair prerecord a set of instructions
for organising cards to form a given pattern. In the laboratory, group
A and group B teachers exchange tapes. Each teacher has a set of cards
to work with when following their partners’ instructions. The task is a
difficult one, and very few complete it successfully. Teachers then con-
tinue, in pairs, seeking clarification from their partners in order either
to complete the pattern-making task or to check that the task has been
completed satisfactorily. Again, and more surprisingly perhaps, very few
teachers succeed, establishing the point that giving complex instructions
is difficult, even in situations where interaction and feedback are possible.
We then provide a taped model. In this case most teachers are able
to complete the task satisfactorily after listening to the tape only once.
The five cards the teachers have and the pattern they are supposed to
construct are given in Figure 1.
The points which usually come out of the discussion are the following:
1. Avery high proportion of the text in complex instructions is ‘framing’
as opposed to ‘directive’.
Z/D
Robert Keith Johnson

(b)

(a)

Figure 1 Pattern-making Task (a) Original cards (b) Solution

2. Instructions need to be broken down into stages.

3. The order of the steps within each stage can be crucial.

The task is of course.an unrealistic one in that a diagram or pattern

should be presented visually, not orally, but its purpose is achieved in
that teachers see the necessity to reevaluate their strategies.
The teachers are asked as their final task to prepare a set of instructions
for a complex task within their subject area. They are also asked to moni-
tor their performance in class in using the operative mode through tapes
of recorded lessons. As every teacher and classroom observer is uncom-
fortably aware, instructions are rarely given at the beginning of a task ina
way which enables students to complete it without further interruption.
Too often, there is a succession of interjections from the teacher along the
lines of ‘Class, just pay attention fora moment, ...’, ‘Listen for a moment
please...’, or ‘Er, there seems to be a problem with...’, as one deviation
from the teacher’s intention after another is discovered as the teacher
moves round the class. The teachers are urged to regard all such ‘repair
strategies’ as evidence of failure in the original formulation of the instruc-
tions, to go back to the wording of those instructions (hence the need for a
recording), and to see how they could have been improved by anticipating
and eliminating the difficulties which resulted. Here obviously it is not just
the wording of the directive or the framing that precedes it which is im-
portant. It may be nécessary to incorporate into the discourse the inform-
ative mode — to give examples, models, illustrations — and the interactive
mode — to. determine whether or not the information has been under-
stood. These informative and interactive exchanges may be seen as
‘embedded’ within the framing phase of the operative mode, which pro-
vides the overriding pedagogical objective at this stage in the lesson.
276
 Developing teachers’ language resources

THE INTERACTIVE MODE

Like the operative mode, the interactive mode has three phases (framing,
mediating, and evaluating), with boundaries marked in this case by an
elicitation by the teacher (which may not be a question) and a reply by
a student.
Units and exercises on the interactive mode also follow the pattern
outlined earlier. Teachers listen to taped exchanges and role-play or
engage in simulation tasks in order to identify problem areas and discuss
means for achieving solutions. The emphasis is upon the language used,
and teachers are discouraged from making statements like “The question
needs to be reworded’. Instead they are asked to propose a rewording
which would achieve a more satisfactory outcome. The following ex-
ercises are presented and discussed briefly as illustrations.
Classroom exchanges for evaluation. The exchanges are almost all taken
from tapes recorded as part of a previous research project on classroom
language (Johnson 1983). However, to protect the teachers concerned
about their voices being recognised, and to improve the quality of the
sound, the exchanges were rerecorded. Where the point being made is
more a question of timing or attitude than content, and fairly simple,
teachers are not given a transcription to follow: for example, where the
teacher prompts a hesitant student four or five times, finally answering
the question without leaving the student time to reply, or where an
inadequate question is simply repeated three or four times until an
equally inadequate response is obtained.
For more complex exchanges, teachers are given a transcript:
( ) Teacher: What food does an amoeba eat, John?
( ) Pupil 1: Algae.
( ) Teacher: Does it eat solid food or liquid food, Mary?
( ) Pupil 2: Er, solid.
( ) Teacher: Solid food particles. Some examples, please. Tom?
( ) Pupil 3: Algae, sir.
(NANA
) Teacher:
BWNKR Algae. Any more examples?
Comments included the dismissive treatment of John, who had given a
correct answer (as we later discover) but not the answer the teacher had
in mind at the time; and secondly, the switch to a binary choice question
(3) in order to get the required answer. Proposed solutions included the
following as an improvement for (5).
Teacher: Solid food particles. Yes. And we have had one example al-
ready from John. That was algae. Any more examples?
The movement from nonbinary to binary questions (3) raises the im-
portant issue of the prevalence and functions of binary questions in
classroom discourse.
27
Robert Keith Johnson
One problem associated with the taped extracts and transcripts is the
apparent ineptitude of some teachers. It is very easy to sit back and
criticise, without the pressures of class control, lesson content, and above
all the need to do something immediately which the classroom teacher
is always under. It helps that the evaluators do not just criticise, but
have to propose more effective responses. However, the greatest aid to
achieving a constructive and suitably humble approach to the data is
the requirement that teachers record, transcribe, and evaluate sections
of their own lessons.

Role-play exercises. In one role-play exercise, the ‘teachers’ attempt to

extract answers from reluctant ‘pupils’. Feelings of superiority, following
evaluation of the classroom extracts, do not survive the replaying of
these recorded exchanges; or those of an equally revealing exercise which
involves the partners in ‘Socratic’ questioning exchanges. Teachers pre-
pare positions or conclusions which they intend their partners to reach.
They then seek to bring their partners to those conclusions by means of
questioning. Again the exchanges are recorded, replayed, and evaluated.

Handling students’ replies. One of the most difficult tasks for any teacher
is handling students’ replies. Supplying continuity between a correct
response and the next phase of a lesson is comparatively easy; moving
a student from a wrong or partly wrong answer towards a better one
requires very considerable mental agility, and it is often at this point in
an interactive exchange that teachers appear least adept.
As an exercise to bring out the problems and to help teachers to
develop strategies for dealing with this situation, we provide sets of
partly matching questions and answers: for example, the question might
relate to the causes of traffic problems, while the answer offers a possible
solution. Each question and reply is therefore prescribed, but from then
on the teacher has to take over and ‘handle’ the reply. The exchanges
are recorded and evaluated, and proposals for improvements or alter-
native strategies are considered.

THE INFORMATIVE MODE

The third mode of the pedagogical aspect that we deal with is the in-
formative mode. In this case an approximately equal amount of time is
given to oral and written text. The three-phase model can also be applied
here (framing, informing, consolidating), but it has proved less satisfac-
tory, primarily because there is no objective basis for marking the di-
visions between the phases, particularly that between framing and
informing, which would require the analyst to distinguish between what

278
 Developing teachers’ language resources

is ‘given’ and what is ‘new’ information, which might in any case differ
from pupil to pupil. There is also a difference of scale. A lesson has
pedagogical goals which are normally stated in terms of knowledge and
skills to be acquired. Interactive and operative modes will be embedded
within the structure of the lesson, and may dominate it in terms of time
spent, but the overall lesson framework has a macrostructure of stages,
topics, themes and subthemes, just as a course book in geography or
physics has chapters and sections, headings and subheadings. The ped-
agogical approach and the teaching style adopted influence the propor-
tion of lesson time spent in interaction and on tasks as opposed to reading
or listening for information, but the overall aim of all teaching and
learning is in some broad sense to inform.
In dealing with the informative mode, we focus on content rather than
intention and show teachers that any learning unit within the curriculum
exists within a ‘macro’ information structure which can be mapped out
hierarchically in headings and subheadings, categories, subcategories,
and so on. The term microstructure is used to refer to the information
within a particular unit of connected discourse.
In dealing with this very complex area, teachers are asked to distin-
guish between ‘information structure’ (the ‘facts’ their discipline deals
with and the inherent structure of those facts) and discourse structure,
which is that knowledge translated from abstract and nonlinear forms
to concrete and linear realisation in linguistic strings. Our aim is to
explore this relationship between information structure and discourse
structure in order to determine what makes a discourse, particularly one
in the informative mode, more or less effective. The conclusion that we
promote is a somewhat simplistic one, but it is one which we feel is well
adapted to the needs of a second language situation. We feel that the
more clearly the discourse reflects and signals the underlying information
structure, the more effective the discourse is likely to be; that is, we are
arguing for a very high level of predictability in pedagogical discourse.
Less simplistically we argue that the ‘expert’ in a given area brings to a
discourse a highly developed presuppositional base which ‘new’ infor-
mation is checked against. The expert also has a set of discourse schemata
or expectations about the manner in which that information will be
presented. The structure of the discourse is therefore of less importance
for the expert than for the neophyte. Further, a major goal for students
of any subject is that they should internalise those schemata which are
so important for effective communication, and we argue that the student
is helped to achieve this goal more rapidly and effectively if the schemata
which are to be internalised are realised explicitly in the discourse which
students experience.
The following illustrate the kinds of exercises on the informative mode.

279
Robert Keith Johnson

1. (a) The teachers hear two discourses which contain the same content.
They take notes and decide which discourse is more effective.
(b) With the transcriptions in front of them, the teachers discuss and
agree on reasons why one discourse is more effective than the
other. They usually point to the higher level of organisation and
more effective use of discourse markers in one of the texts.
(c) A tree diagram is used to show the structure of the information
in the discourses (in this case, situation, problem, solution), and
a comparison is made between the two transcriptions and the
information structure. This shows that the more effective dis-
course ‘reveals’ the information structure, where the other tends
to obscure it.
Recent models of the information structures underlying academic
discourse are introduced. We use models based on Davies and Greene
(1984) and Lunzer and Gardner (1984), both sets of models being
derived from a Schools Council project in Great Britain. The teachers
then ‘map’ various written discourses from textbooks in their subject
areas onto these models and use their knowledge and expertise to
decide
(a) what improvements should be made in the information structure
or content of the discourse, and
(b) what improvements should be made in the discourse so that it
makes the information more accessible to the reader and inducts
the reader more effectively into this particular style of discourse
— that is, assists the reader to internalise the schemata appropriate
to reading and writing this type of text.
3: Text reconstruction.
(a) Teachers identify a passage in a textbook within their subject
area, 200-300 words in length, which they feel is inadequate in
both content and presentation.
(b) They complete a content analysis of the passage by presenting
the information in a tree diagram or a table.
(c) They modify the information structure.
(d) They rewrite the passage, which must be of the same length and
level as the original.

Conclusion
a .

A recent evaluation exercise showed that we still have a long way to go

in the practical details of running the programme, and improvements
are needed as well as the more theoretical level. Nevertheless, my
main worry, that teachers would perceive the programme as irrelevant
or at best peripheral to their needs, seems unfounded. Recording their

280
 Developing teachers’ language resources

own lessons proved popular and useful, and it was suggested that there
should be a before and after tape and transcription to see what differ-
ences emerged. We had felt that the task of transcribing and analysing
even quite short sections of lessons would be unpopular because it is
time consuming, and because discourse analysis is not something teach-
ers of science or history could be expected to find immediately appealing.
The value of discourse analysis per se remains an open question, but
teachers found that transcription and analysis were helpful and resulted
in new insights into their performance in the classroom. We are at present
revising our programme, but do not expect that this will be the final
version. With all the work that is currently being carried out in classroom
research and on discourse by linguists and psycholinguists, we expect
to continue to revise and develop the programme in the years ahead.
Our goal for next year is to spend as much time as possible recording
and observing in classrooms in order to test the validity of the models
we have developed so far and to extend the range of authentic examples
that we can use for illustration and evaluation.
In conclusion, we feel that there is a long way to go, but the direction
is right. We are convinced that a programme of this kind should be a
component in any foreign or second language teacher preparation pro-
gramme, but feel that it may be of particular relevance to second lan-
guage teacher education, where English has a role to play across the
~ curriculum.

281
18 An ethnographic approach
to inservice preparation:
the Hungary file
Fraida Dubin and Rita Wong

In this chapter, we present a view about inservice programs for nonnative

teachers that we have come to foster through our involvement with
teacher preparation activities in a variety of locales where English is
taught as a foreign and second language. Realizing that the role of the
outside specialist is tenuous, at best, we suggest that teacher educators
must strive to understand the context of teaching through their partic-
ipants’ perspective, a goal that is more significant, we believe, than
bringing the latest word about theory or practice to teachers in the
trenches. We call this view “an ethnographic approach,” borrowing from
social science research models which stress qualitative rather than quan-
titative data collection. The first part of the chapter focuses on inservice
training in general; the second part is a case study of a program for
Hungarian teachers in which we participated as teacher educators over
five summers in the 1980s. The two parts are interconnected: Part 2
illustrates the motivation for adopting the general approach that is pre-
sented in Part 1.

Part 1. Background to inservice training

There are several ways in which inservice training (IST) and preservice
training (PST) contrast. From the start, it is vital to emphasize that the
two domains are not mirror images of each other. There is far more to
their dissimilarity than whether the participants have blank or full slates,
so to speak. Certainly, IST is not well characterized by simply turning
PST inside out.
IST usually takes place for a specific purpose, even if that purpose is
not evident on the surface; therefore, gathering informat
at theion
outset »
in order to produce a cantata needs: analysis is crucial ~In addition,
IST programs usually have focused requirements that are different from
PST. For example, a practicum component may be called for in IST for
quite different reasons than it would be in PST. Experienced teachers in
IST may benefit from actually trying out new methods in a simulated
situation before taking them back to their classrooms. But their need
for practice is directed toward other matters than it would be for in-
experienced teachers.

282
 An ethnographic approach to inservice preparation

At first, it may seem appealing to apply the distinction to IST and

PST that has been made between training and education (Campbell
1967; Larsen-Freeman 1983), handing over to PST the distinction of
“educating” future teachers, while designating IST to take up more
“‘situation-oriented-concerns”’ (Larsen: Freeman T983)-Tn thisview, PST
education provides the breadth and scope of the various disciplines,
which become teachers’ background knowledge. IST, on the other hand,
pinpoints specific areas by offering a repertoire of techniques to use in
a known situation. In Larsen-Freeman’s view, PST should give teachers
sufficient knowledge to be able to make their own choices and training
to develop skills.
Although in a general sense this distinction is valid, in the real world
it falls short of illuminating some of the more fundamental differences
between PST and IST. More significant for second language (L2) IST is
the issue of the teacher educator’s practical knowledge of the teachers’

with the educational system and institutions of the teachers? How con-
versant are the teacher educators with the teachers’ first language and
culture? How much time do the teacher educators have to acquaint
themselves with various aspects of the student teachers’ culture? What
access do they have to these kinds of information?
A model for IST that has been proposed for another educational field
(L1 reading) assumes that information about staff or student teachers’
needs is easily accessible, and in fact already in the teacher educators’
possession. The model contains the following steps (Siedow, Mem-
w 1985) Ve eee ptt: a7 )\ .

However, carrying out the first step, the needs analysis, may not be
immediately possible in many English language IST programs. Teacher
educators may not be familiar with the student teachers’ teaching sit-
uation. In fact, the student teachers may not be fluent speakers of the
English language. Moreover, the teacher educators may have very little
information about the resources of the training site.
Teacher educators working within a particular school district, who
are members of the same community from which the teachers are drawn,
come closest to the model suggested by Siedow et al. (1985), since they
are probably well acquainted with the issues that have motivated a
teacher preparation program. Even programs provided by national and
international agencies, such as Peace Corps and VISTA, can be built
around quite specific requirements, since there is likely to be ongoing
feedback from teachers in the field to teacher educators. Another type
of IST, often overlooked, is the professic sonvention, which provides

283
Fraida Dubin and Rita Wong

training for practicing teachers (Gardiner 1987). The higher-education

units or credits that attendees can obtain are based on a wide choice of
conference offerings, although frequently without any specific check on
what understandings or insights resulted from attendance.
All of the kinds of teacher education discussed so far presuppose that
the providers of IST understand the teachers’ classroom and institutional
situations. Or, on a scale of low to high, they represent a fairly high
degree of acquaintanceship with the teachers’ work world. Within sec-
ond language IST over the past few decades, there has been a good deal
of activity at the low-understanding end of the scale. An example of low
understanding sometimes occurs when academic specialists provide pro-
grams for teachers in parts of the world where English is a foreign
language. The possibility that the specialists might have intimate knowl-
edge and understanding of the teachers’ situation always exists, but the
opposite is also the case.
Although the U.S. government and American educational institutions
have been prominent in the worldwide activity of providing IST for
second language teachers in the recent period, organizations such as the
British Council paved the way before them. Britten (1985b) outlined IST
programs from the viewpoint of British efforts. He mentioned that the
“commonest need [in such programs] is for language improvement [for
the trainees]” (p. 234).
Early (1983), in a personal narrative, recounted his experiences with
the British Council in Yugoslavia. He provided a wealth of background
information about the country and its educational institutions. It is not
clear, however, whether he possessed such knowledge before he under-
took setting up programs for the British Council. Britten also describes
IST as typically short-term, employing outside experts in the field. In-
deed, teacher educators emerge like village elders. Early sums up his
experience with the British Council in Yugoslavia by noting, too, “that
the process is ...a subtler one than the mere importation of ready-made
educational solutions. It involves dialogue, interaction between outside
‘experts’ and native practitioners” (p. 151).
An American academic specialist/“‘village elder’ is likely to fall into
doing IST programs abroad by receiving an unexpected telephone call:
“Are you able to go to... in... for... weeks/months?” Being adventur-
ous by nature, with a penchant for exotic travel, the American responds
positively. In some cases details of the assignment may have been well
defined. More typically, the responsibility of delineating the goals and
objectives of the program falls into the hands of the selected teacher
educators. At this point in the design of the program, the specialists need
to start the information-gathering process by asking questions that will
help in their preparation.

284
 An ethnographic approach to inservice preparation

Preparatory questions
1. Define target audience. Will the teachers be novices or experienced?
What levels do they teach — elementary through tertiary? Will the group
be composed exclusively of teachers or will it include supervisors and
inspectors, too?
2. Secure information regarding sponsors. Who suggested holding the
program? What are the sponsors’ goals for the program? How will the
sponsors evaluate the program? Will the sponsors’ representative be
present at the program? What role do the sponsors have in the orga-
nization of the program? How have past programs, if any, been
evaluated?
3. Secure archival information. Are there reports from previous pro-
grams? Where are they filed? Can the writers be contacted?
4. Define time factors. What are the starting and ending dates? Do
the dates include travel time to and from the program site? When does
the program occur in relation to the teachers’ school year? Are the
teachers using their vacation or holiday time to attend the program? In
a residence program, how will the teachers spend their free time (evenings
and weekends)? Will they travel home? How much of each day will be
devoted to organized classes, recreational activities, individual study and
reading, or free time?
5. Survey program site and its resources. Where will the teachers live?
Where will the staff live? Where will meals be provided? Will the staff
have some or all of their meals with the teachers? Where are the class-
rooms in relation to where the teachers and teacher educators live? What
are the physical characteristics of the classrooms? What audiovisual
equipment is available? What support services (typing, copying, etc.) are
available? What are the characteristics of the environment: Are there
historical, cultural, or recreational attractions?
6. Determine composition of the teaching staff. What are the insti-
tutional affiliations and areas of expertise represented? How will re-
sponsibilities be shared among the group? Will one person serve as a
coordinator? Are there opportunities for the teaching team to meet to-
gether before the program begins?
7. Survey language competence and expectations of participants. What
exposure have the teachers had to native varieties of English? Have they
attended previous IST programs, American or British? Have they at-
tended IST programs abroad? Do they expect a lecture format u-
sively? Do they expect hands-on experiences? Will they be comfortab
in participatory activities?
8. Define broad goals and specific objectives. Will the program con-
centrate on techniques or on background enrichment? What will be the

285
Fraida Dubin and Rita Wong

mix of professional topics, language, and pedagogy, as well as other

components? How important is the goal of improving the teachers’ own
language competence?
9. Design a syllabus schedule. How will the syllabus incorporate the
overall goals? How will the teacher educators assume responsibilities
for various components of the syllabus? Will all of the trainers take part
in all of the activities? How much of the day will be devoted to planned
activities?
10. Specify, locate, and secure materials. Will the program provide
textbooks, audio- and videotapes, and other materials? What is the
budget for these materials? Who is responsible for ordering materials
and getting them to the program site? Are there locally produced ma-
terials that should be utilized?
11. Prepare program materials. What materials can be prepared before
the program starts (course handouts, questionnaires, evaluation instru-
ments, visual aids, background materials for films, and so on)?

Ongoing questions
Information-gathering must go on throughout the program. It is not
sufficient simply to prepare a syllabus on the basis of the prepatory
questions, even though they serve to get the program underway. The
answers to ongoing questions help teacher educators understand the
participants’ teaching situations from the outlook of the local culture.
They also add to the data base for future staff. Getting beneath the
surface of the host culture may present barriers that go beyond English
language teaching. They may impinge upon political constraints, reli-
gious beliefs, or other culture-based elements. Asking direct questions
may not be the most effective way. In fact, the teacher educators need
to exercise tact and diplomacy; the need for cross-cultural sensitivity is
vital.
In many ways, endeavoring to understand as much as possible about
the teachers’ own views of their needs and expectations bri teacher
educators into touch with an ethnographic approach to IST. In ethnog-
raphy, the investigator seeks to understand members of a culture from
an insider’s viewpoint. The goal is far more difficult to achieve than it
appears on the surface. But at least having the goal as an ideal can help
staff avoid making serious misjudgments in the planning and executing
of an IST program. Many of the customary techniques ethnographers
use in the field may be cumbersome to carry out in IST (interviews,
questionnaires, surveys, participant observations, etc.). Nevertheless, all
attempts to understand the belief systems that motivate behavior in the
host culture serve the overall goal.
The following list of questions suggests the kind of information

286
 An ethnographic approach to inservice preparation

educators-as-ethnopraphers seek about the participants’ work world and

about themselves as a teacher-education team. We have formulated it
with the benefit of hindsight. Our realization that these kinds of questions
need to be asked evolved as a result of gaining more and more experience
with the circumstances of a particular country’s educational system.
1. The curriculum for English language instruction. Does the govern-
ment have a mandated curriculum? To what extent is it followed? Has
it been recently updated or revised?
2. The role of countrywide examinations. Is there a logical connection
between the curricula and the examinations? Are there countrywide
English language examinations? Under whose auspices are they admin-
istered? What is the approach to language pedagogy underlying the
examination? Do these examinations serve as screening instruments for
university applicants?
3. Textbooks in use. What are the textbooks in use? Are they produced
locally or imported from abroad? How are they selected? Are the teachers
satisfied with them? Do the textbooks have a range of ancillary materials:
workbooks, tapes, teacher’s manuals, visual aids? Are there unofficial
books in use? How do teachers procure them? What other materials,
both visual and audio, do teachers have access to?
4. Teachers’ preservice preparation. What kind of preservice prepa-
ration did the teachers undertake: university or teacher education col-
lege? Are there status differences between graduates of these institutions?
What were their fields of concentration: literature, language, pedagogy,
others? Who becomes an English language teacher in the particular
country?
5. Teaching assignments and conditions. What is a typical teaching
load: the average number of pupils per class, the number of hours teach-
ers teach? What other subjects do teachers teach? Do they have super-
visors who support their efforts? Do they have more than one job? Do
they tend to be the sole supporters of families? What is the general status
of teachers?
6. Teachers’ personal sensitivities. How comfortable are they in using
English with their peers? Are they reticent in expressing opinions in front
of peers? Are they willing to display their teaching abilities before their
peers?
7. Teachers’ benefits and liabilities from attending the IST program.
Are all the participants’ tuition and expenses at the program provided
by the sponsoring agency? Have they been allowed time off from their
regular positions to attend? How have they arranged for substitutes both
at school and at home? Why have they come: to learn, to rest, to socialize,
to have a vacation, to speak English?
8. Teacher educators’ views. Can the staff work well together as a
team? As individuals, do they want to expend the time and energy
287
Fraida Dubin and Rita Wong

required for ongoing planning and exchanging of information during

the program? Are they*curious and interested to learn about the host
country and its language, culture, political/economic life? Do they tend
to view the activity of teacher education as that of bringing “wisdom”
to local teachers or as participating in others’ growth and development?

Part 2. The American IST course in Hungary

Our own affirmative responses to telephoned invitations from Wash-

ington, D.C., to go to Hungary as teacher educators — we were there
both separately and at the same time — were certainly motivated by the
typical language teaching specialist’s enthusiasm for travel. We also
sensed the opportunity to gain new professional experience. In our ear-
liest encounters with the Hungary program, it scarcely occurred to us
to ask many of the questions outlined in Part 1. The fact that there was
a program in existence seemed to imply that issues of needs analysis/
course planning had been settled. Actually, it was from venturing into
a program that we as teacher educators knew little about that we came
to recognize the importance of an ethnographic approach. In this section
we sketch out some of the details of the IST course in Hungary, in effect
answering many of the questions posed in Part 1.
The American Course (the name apparently was supplied by the host
country) began in the early 1980s, a time when the Hungarian govern-
ment was reaching out to the United States. One result was an agreement
to jointly sponsor a course for Hungarian teachers of English. The agree-
ment called for the Hungarian government to select the participants;
provide in-country facilities, including housing and a living stipend for
the American specialists; and to provide a recreation program. The
American government, through the U.S. Information Agency, selected
the team of academic specialists who became the teacher educators and
provided for their travel and compensation.
The program was generally modeled on one the British Council had
provided for many years. It took place during the teachers’ summer
holiday period, usually quite soon after they had finished the school
year. The site was a provincial town that had accommodations for a
live-in, three-week program at a school, college, or cultural center. The
teachers came from locations throughout the country.
From its inception, the program has had a syllabus that combines
language pedagogy and American literature. Although never explicitly
articulated, at least three goals have coexisted. One has been the aca-
demic specialists’ presumed goal of enhancing the participants’ profes-
sional skills. The second has been the U.S. government’s goal of
promoting American culture, since the agency after all is in the “public

288
 An ethnographic approach to inservice preparation

information” business. A third goal has been the participants’ own need
to develop their individual English language proficiency. Since the pro-
gram has received minimal guidance from its American and Hungarian
sponsors, it has rested with each team to work out a reasonable balance
among the three goals. During the early years, a new team was chosen
each time. More recently, at least one person has been invited to go back
the following year to effect continuity.
From the perspective of the TEFL (teaching English as a foreign lan-
guage) academic specialists, the program goal has been to present current
findings in language acquisition and pedagogy. For example, there have
been significant developments in communicative language teaching to
which Hungarian teachers have had little exposure. As each year’s team
has come to grips with the program syllabus, there has been a tendency,
of course, for each teacher educator to select material she or he is cur-
rently most interested in or familiar with.
The promotion of American culture, the U.S. government’s goal, has
been realized in various ways: through lectures on the latest develop-
ments in American literature (e.g., a survey of black women writers);
discussions of contemporary poetry and short stories; showings of classic
and current American films; a library of current magazines and news-
papers for free-time reading. Since many of the participants’ preservice
education at the university was primarily through literature courses, this
component has been well received. Each year, at least one academic
specialist has had an English department affiliation at an American
university.
As for the participants, they have been more apt to see the program
as an opportunity to improve their English language skills. Many of
them live and teach in provincial towns, and have little or no contact
with English speakers. They look to IST programs, both American and
British, as a chance for intensive self-improvement. Indeed, those with
well-developed social skills endeavor in every way to interact with the
teacher educators, both in and outside of class.
Through the life of the program, however, there has been a tendency
for some academic specialists, from both literature and TEFL, to be
unobservant of any of these goals. They have come prepared only to
repeat the lectures they delivered on their own campuses in the United
States, assuming that the content would be suitable for a Hungarian
audience. Also, different teams have tended to work out the conflict of
goals in various ways, from avoidance (never discussing overall program
goals) to implicit acceptance that each trainer would have a block of
time to present his or her specialty, with little or no attempt made to
integrate program content. As a result, in some programs there has been
an undercurrent not unlike a popularity contest among the staff, each
with a small group of teachers as strong loyalists.
289
Fraida Dubin and Rita Wong

The fact that different teams of teacher educators are selected each
year, at times with members not knowing each other before coming, has
made planning difficult. Some continuity has resulted from bringing back
a member of the previous year’s team to serve as “coordinator.”’ Even
so, the role of the coordinator has not been specified in much detail;
thus a great deal is left up to the particular teacher educators for each
year’s program. The degree to which the educators are able to work
together as a team is a matter of chance. The selection of staff takes
place through the U.S. Information Agency in Washington, D.C. Aca-
demic specialists have had a minimum of input to the process.
In the first few years of the program there was little attempt at co-
ordination or preprogram planning. Initial communication among the
staff occurred when they first met each other in a Budapest hotel lobby.
There was an assumption that someone else had planned the program
and that the staff would be given a copy of the schedule. They were
surprised to find that there was none.
Although the TEFL specialists, at least, have all come with consid-
erable experience living and working in other cultures, very few of them
over the years of the program have had firsthand knowledge of Hungary.
As outsiders, teacher educators have had a tendency to assume uncon-
sciously that the Hungarian teacher participants would all be cut from
the same economic slice of life. Through participant observation, how-
ever, the often deep differences among them have become apparent. One
teacher educator has recounted the variety of opinions that were ex-
pressed when she used a New York Times clipping about a famous
shopping street in Budapest as the basis for class activities. Some deplored
the article, saying that the area was strictly for tourists; they could never
afford to shop there. Others found the article engrossing; they were
eager to read what an American correspondent had written about their
city, and they didn’t disparage the subject matter in any way.
Along with the social class differences among them, the teachers have
come from a wide spectrum of teaching situations. Although the Ministry
of Education has primarily selected teachers from the secondary level
(“gymnasium”’ teachers, who also teach Russian, a required subject in
the country), there have also been teachers from other organizations,
such as technical, elementary, and various institutions; the Hungarian
airlines; a ballet school.
Participants’ language proficiency has been relatively high given their
limited exposure, particularly to spoken American English. Their interest
level and enthusiasm has been noted to be particularly keen; they attend
the course because they want to be there (the selection process seems to
be clouded in bureaucratic mystery for them, as well); many make per-
sonal sacrifices and complex arrangements to be away from home.
With a group of forty to fifty teacher participants (typically females

290
 An ethnographic approach to inservice preparation

have outnumbered males two to one), a training team of three or four

academic specialists, and a site away from the trainees’ own cities and
towns, the three-week program has had certain characteristics in com-
mon with a summer camp experience for adults. The teachers themselves
have been interested to explore the local sights; at the same time, they
have always graciously extended themselves to be guides, translators,
and hosts to their American “‘tutors.”’
While Hungarians insist that their language is not learnable by non-
natives, the slightest attempt on the part of staff to use the local language
has not only had the functional advantage of making it easier to ask for
directions, order in a restaurant, and so on, but it has also communicated
their deeper interest in the culture and the people. The effort, when it
has been put forth, has helped to mitigate the image of teacher educators
as experts who appear from overseas, drop their pearls of wisdom, and
vacate as soon as the program is over.
Hungarian teachers have access to British textbooks in significant num-
bers; there are materials sponsored by the Ministry of Education, and a
growing number of independently produced books published in Hungary
for English language instruction. Hungarians have had highly limited, if
any, contact with American-produced materials, except those brought
into the country by Fulbright lecturers. Although a library of American
books exists in the U.S. Embassy in Budapest, most teachers do not avail
themselves of this resource because they believe that to do so might put
them in jeopardy with the internal political bureaucracy. Many have aspi-
rations to travel abroad; they are planning to apply for visas or scholar-
ships. Thus the American course has been one of the few opportunities for
teachers to use materials that otherwise would not be accessible.
The American IST course is the new show in town, so to speak. Many
who have been attending British Council programs for English language
teachers over the years cannot resist comparing the efforts of the two
Western countries. The British Council IST program in Hungary most
recently has concentrated on the elementary level. But over the more
than twenty years that the British Council has been providing IST in
Hungary, teachers from a variety of settings and levels have been ac-
commodated. A sprinkling of teachers at the American course have often
mentioned their attendance at short-term programs in the United King-
dom. In fact, for many Hungarian teachers an invitation to attend a
seminar abroad is the most realistic possibility for travel to the West.

Summary

Over the years we have been involved in the American IST course in
Hungary (1983-7), we have learned how important preplanning and
291
Fraida Dubin and Rita Wong
ongoing information-gathering can be in providing a program with a
high degree of relevance to the local situation. We have also come to
appreciate how necessary it is for teacher educators to work together
as a team. In addition, we have been able to draw generalizations from
the experience that we believe are applicable to a wide variety of inservice
programs. Not only is teaching English in exotic places exhilarating, but
providing inservice training courses in other cultures is highly rewarding.

292,
19 Observing classroom behaviours and
learning outcomes in different
second language programs
Nina Spada

This chapter reports on the use of a second language (L2) classroom

observation instrument in a variety of L2 programs over a five-year span.
It has been used in regular English and French as a second language
(ESL and FSL) programs for children, in intensive ESL programs for
children and adults, and in extended French and French immersion
programs for children and adolescents. These programs vary in their
approach to second language teaching, the time devoted to the teaching
of the second language, and the characteristics of the L2 environment
learners may have access to outside the classroom setting. In all six
instructional contexts, the observation scheme has been used for process-
oriented research purposes. That is, the scheme has been used
as a descriptive tool to provide information about what actually goes
on between teachers and students in pedagogical and, in some cases,
linguistic interactional terms. Furthermore, in two of these programs,
the observation scheme has been used for both process- and product-
oriented research purposes. In other words, it has been used to describe
instructional differences in an attempt to relate those differences to learn-
ing outcomes.
The chapter begins with a description of how this observation scheme
was used in the six instructional settings. Next is a discussion of the
results that have been obtained in terms of (1) differences in instruction
across various L2 programs (i.e., process-oriented studies) and (2) re-
lationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes (i.e.,
process-product studies). Before the studies are discussed, both the ob-
servation scheme and the instructional programs in which it has been
used will be described.

Observation instrument: the COLT scheme

The observation instrument, referred to as COLT (Communicative Ori-

entation of Language Teaching), was originally developed within the
context of a large-scale study investigating questions related to the nature

The author is grateful to Patrick Allen, Maria Fréhlich, Fred Genesee, and Patsy Light-
bown for their comments and useful discussion in the preparation of this chapter.

293
Nina Spada

of language proficiency and its development in educational contexts for

children learning a second language (Allen et al. 1982, 1983; Harley et
al. 1987). The scheme consists of two sections. Part A, which contains
categories derived primarily from issues in the communicative language
teaching literature, describes classroom activities in organizational and
pedagogical terms; Part B, which contains categories to reflect issues in
first and second language acquisition research, describes aspects of the
verbal interactions that take place between teachers and students within
activities. (For a complete description of the COLT scheme and rationale
for Part A and Part B categories, see Allen, Frohlich, and Spada 1984.)
Part A contains five major categories: Activity Description, Participant
Organization, Content, Student Modality, and Materials (see Appendix
1). These categories and their subsections were designed to capture those
aspects of classroom instruction that are more or less typical within a
“communicative language teaching” approach. For example, classroom
organization that is student-focused, with an emphasis on meaning-based
practice and the use of authentic materials in which extended texts
predominate, is considered to be more communicatively oriented than
a classroom that is teacher-centered, where language itself is the focus
of instruction and where most materials are pedagogical, with little
extended text.’
Part B (see Appendix 1) is used to analyze classroom activities at the
level of verbal interaction. This section of the scheme measures such
features as the extent to which learners are given opportunities to pro-
duce the second language without teacher-imposed linguistic restrictions,
to engage in sustained speech, to exchange unknown or relatively un-
predictable information, and to initiate discourse. Part B also measures
teacher talk to determine, for example, the extent to which teachers ask
genuine versus pseudo questions,” and how they respond to students’
utterances in terms of comments, repetitions, paraphrases, and incor-
porations. (See Frohlich, Spada, and Allen 1985 for details regarding
the coding procedures for COLT.)

The programs

Four studies have reported using COLT in one or more of the six L2
instructional programs described here. Two of these studies have focused
on describing and comparing classroom behaviors either between dif-

1 Part A is a,“real-time”’ section of the coding scheme used during the classroom ob-—
servation sessions by one or two observers. Part B is used in post-hoc analyses of the
classroom observation data from audiotaped recordings.
2 Genuine questions are those to which the teacher and/or student does not already
know the answer. Pseudo questions are those to which the answer is already known.

294
 Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes

ferent L2 programs (Frohlich et al. 1985) or within the same L2 program

(Lightbown and Spada 1987). The other two have used the COLT
scheme to capture differences in instruction between individual classes
within the same L2 program in an attempt to relate differences in in-
struction to learning outcomes (Allen et al. 1987; Spada 1987). The six
instructional program types represented in this research can be briefly
distinguished as follows:
1. ESL for children. The ESL program was in an anglophone environ-
ment, in an English-speaking school where grade 7 students spent all
or most of the day with their ESL teacher. In addition to English
language instruction, students also received varying amounts of
subject-matter instruction.
2. Intensive ESL for children. The intensive ESL program was in a
French-medium school in a francophone environment where grade
5 and 6 students spent all day with their ESL instructor for half of
the school year and the rest of the year doing their regular academic
subjects in French. In the intensive ESL classes, no curriculum-based
subject-matter instruction was provided.
3. Core French for children. The core French program was one in which
grades 7 and 11 students received approximately 30—40 minutes of
French language instruction a day. This program was in an English-
speaking school in an anglophone environment.
4. French immersion for children. In the French immersion program,
French was used as the medium of instruction in subject-matter
classes at the grade 7 level. This program was in an anglophone
environment.
5. Extended French for children. In the extended French program, grade
7 students were taught one school subject in French in addition to
their regular core French program. This program was in an English-
medium school in an anglophone environment. The observations
were carried out in the subject-matter classes of this program.
6. Intensive ESL for adults. The intensive ESL program was one in
which intermediate-level students received approximately 5 hours of
instruction per day in English over a 6-week period. This program
was located in an English university in an anglophone environment.
The discussion of the studies that have used the COLT scheme begins
with the two process-oriented studies and later turns to those which
were process—product-oriented.

Process-oriented studies
Thirteen classes spread across four different L2 programs were observed
in a study by Fréhlich et al. (1985) to determine whether the COLT
295
Nina Spada

scheme was capable of capturing instructional features in a variety of

L2 programs with different pedagogical orientations. All four programs
were school-based (at the grade 7 level); those represented were core
French (4 classes), extended French (2 classes), French immersion (2
classes), and ESL (5 classes). Classes lasted from 30 to 100 minutes, and
each class was visited twice by two observers. The data were analyzed
using both Part A and Part B of the COLT scheme.
The COLT scheme was designed to capture differences in the com-
municative orientation of L2 instruction. That is, the occurrence or
nonoccurrence of a cluster of specific features on the scheme is inter-
preted as representing a more or less communicative orientation to L2
instruction. With this distinction in mind, the investigators had a number
of expectations concerning the main characteristics of the four types of
programs under investigation. These expectations were based on some
preliminary observations of classes in the various programs, discussions
with teachers and program consultants regarding the methodological
approach used in their program, and a review of textbooks and other
teaching materials. Based on this information, the investigators predicted
that the core French program, with its strong emphasis on form-based
practice, would probably emerge as the least communicative on the
COLT scheme. The extended French program, with its presentation of
some subject matter, was predicted to emerge as more communicative
than the core French program. French immersion was predicted to be
even more communicatively oriented than both extended and core
French because of its complete focus on French-medium subject-matter
instruction. With regard to the ESL program, the investigators predicted
that although teachers would “use class time to practice various aspects
of the language code, they would seek to introduce communicative en-
richment material from the ‘real world’ outside the classroom whenever
possible,”’ since the ESL learners were learning their second language in
an English-speaking environment (Frohlich et al. 1985: 31). According
to these predictions, the four programs were viewed as being placed
along a communicative continuum in the following order: core French
at the “least communicative” end and French immersion at the “most
communicative” end, with extended French and ESL in between.
The results of the analyses of the Part A and Part B features for all
classes within each of these four programs generally confirmed the pre-
dictions made about the relative communicative orientation of one pro-
gram compared with another, although some specific features were
exceptions.” For example, as predicted, the core French program was
found to be highly teacher-centered, but so were the other French L2
programs, which was not predicted. The ESL program was considerably

3 For a detailed description of the results, see Fréhlich et al. (1985).

296
 Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes

less teacher-centered than the other groups, but this did not turn out to
mean that the ESL students were involved in more group interaction,
as anticipated, but rather that they were involved in a considerable
amount of individual seat work. Also, as predicted, the core French
program focused more heavily on code-related features of the second
language than did the immersion and extended French programs, which
were considerably more meaning-based. However, the ESL program was
again found to be the exception in that it was the most heavily oriented
toward explicit language instruction, with comparatively little time spent
on meaning-based instruction.*
The Part B features analysis also confirmed some of the investigators’
predictions. It revealed that although teachers in all programs rarely
asked genuine questions, the proportion of genuine questions increased
by program in the predicted order: core French, extended French, French
immersion, and ESL. This order was also found for the amount of
sustained speech used by teachers in these programs. That is, teacher
turns in core French classes were rarely sustained; whereas in the ex-
tended French, French immersion, and ESL classes, sustained discourse
on the part of the teacher was greater. An analysis of the teachers’ spoken
reactions to student utterances (i.e., the use of such strategies as repe-
tition, paraphrase, expansions, and elaborations) revealed that in all
programs teachers rarely expanded and elaborated upon students’ ut-
terances, although when such teacher behaviors did occur, they tended
to be in the extended and immersion programs.
The Part B analysis of the students’ speech revealed that students in
the core French program produced significantly fewer unpredictable re-
sponses than those in the other programs. This had been predicted, since
it was felt that a focus on subject matter in the extended French and
immersion programs would lead to more opportunities for unpredictable
speech on the part of the learner. Also as predicted, in the core French
program, the students’ speech was the most restricted in linguistic form
as well as the most minimal in length of utterance. Much less restricted
speech and more sustained discourse were found in the speech of learners
in the extended French, immersion, and ESL programs.
In the second process-oriented study, Lightbown and Spada (1987)
used a modified version of the COLT scheme (see Appendix 2) in a
study of experimental intensive ESL programs in the elementary schools
in Quebec. They used COLT to investigate whether there were instruc-
tional differences between classes in which intensive instruction was
being offered. For each of two five-month intensive sessions, four classes
4 The investigators suggested that a possible reason for the heavy code focus in these
ESL classes was because learners had considerable opportunities for informal acqui-
sition of the second language outside the classroom setting and needed to focus on
code in the classroom.

297,
Nina Spada

TABLE I. PARTICIPANT ORGANIZATION: MEAN PERCENTAGES OF OBSERVED

TIME BY PROGRAM

Core Extended Immersion ESL Intensive ESL

Teacher-centered 58.49 70.48 60.90 21.28 53.67
Student-centered Dien /220 1732 11.05 13.11
Choral 14.40 0 PAE 1.28 0
Group 5.01 0 0 10.00 12.48
Individual 19.38.1232 19.05 43.02 14.76
Group/Ind. 0 0 0 13:3 Zot de

were observed four times each. This represented a total of thirty-two

observation sessions, which lasted approximately five hours each. The
data collected from these sessions were analyzed using the Part A features
of the scheme.° The results of these analyses indicated that the classes
were similar to each other. Instruction was teacher-centered for about
half the time for all classes, with the remaining time spent in group,
individual, and student-centered ways. Also, all classes spent very little
time focusing on the linguistic aspects of the second language, empha-
sizing topic and meaning-based instruction instead.° Classes were also
similar in their focus on skills-based practice and materials use. This is
not to imply that there were no class differences. For example, one of
the classes tended to be more form-focused than the others, and another
class tended to use materials in which the texts were more extended than
others. However, these differences were slight, and overall the eight
intensive classes observed can be described as exhibiting similar char-
acteristics of communicative language teaching.
It is interesting to examine how the five programs described in these
two studies compare in terms of the Part A features analysis of COLT.
Tables 1—4 present these findings. Before a comparison of these results
is presented, it is important to emphasize that the results were obtained
from a small sample of classes in the five programs under investigation.
Therefore, these data do not reflect instructional characteristics of all
classes in all programs. Nonetheless, the general characteristics of class-
room instruction captured by the COLT scheme are probably typical of
the classes in these different L2 programs.
Table 1 shows that there are differences in participant organization

5 This research is continuing, and the investigators plan to carry out a Part B features
analysis of these data.
6 It is important to note that Quebec law prevents the instruction of academic subject
matter in any language other than the official language, French, in French-medium
schools. Therefore, when we refer to topic and content coverage in intensive instruction,
we are not referring to regular subject areas such as mathematics, science, etc., but
rather to such topics as housing, sports, music, family, etc.

298
 Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes

TABLE 2. CONTENT: MEAN PERCENTAGES OF OBSERVED TIME BY PROGRAM

Core Extended Immersion ESL Intensive ESL

Management 23) OAS 4.75 D.00) 22093
Language 58.44 25.10 25.47 ° 66.43 13.75
Other topics 27.89 40.55 62.53 16:527295.0;00
Note: The content category on Part A of the COLT scheme is divided into
several subcategories. Because the studies used slightly different versions of these
categories, only the major ones are used for comparison purposes here. These
percentages do not add up to 100 because only exclusive focus on the three
content areas is presented in this table. The remaining time was spent on a
combination of language and other topics.

FABLE 3. MODALITY: MEAN PERCENTAGES OF OBSERVED TIME BY PROGRAM

Core Extended Immersion ESL Intensive ESL

Listening FAG" >13.70 12.87 2.85 9.08

Speaking 1.09 0 0 0 56
Reading 0 1.08 1837 84 3.34
Writing 1.66 0 2225 Bp2ei7 7.93
List./Speak. 3830 . 19.52 32:50 24.33 46.27
List./Speak./Read. 24.78 44.40 29.57. 4.17 2.67
Note: Only the most frequently occurring categories across all programs are
presented here. Many more combinations for modalities occurred in all
programs.

TABLE 4. TYPE OF MATERIALS: MEAN PERCENTAGE OF TIME OBSERVED IN

PROGRAMS

Core Extended Immersion ESL Intensive ESL

Text
Minimal 43.08 35.11 31.20 522912287,
Extended (3 ee Oel9 50.90 345/38 al 7,
Audio .68 30/5) 0 0 op)
Visual 18.23 5.28 4.10 1.08 14.15
EEE IEPs ie MR sa cache
Note: These figures do not add up to 100 because materials were not used at
all times during instruction.

across programs. For example, the ESL program is the least teacher-
centered, and extended French is the most teacher-centered. In terms of
group-work opportunities, the two ESL programs are the highest, with
french immersion and extended French having no group work. Table
2 indicates that French immersion programs focus on topics other than
language more than any other program (which is to be expected) and
299
Nina Spada
that core French and ESL focus most heavily on explicit language in-
struction. Of more interest perhaps is the greater amount of time that
the intensive ESL classes spent on topics other than language compared
with the other two programs that were language-based (i.e., core French
and ESL). Table 3 shows that in all programs students spent most of
their time engaged in a combination of modality practice rather than in
isolated practice of the four skills. The most frequently occurring mo-
dalities involve combinations of listening and speaking, with listening/
speaking/reading occurring most frequently in French immersion and
extended French programs. Table 4 indicates that programs differ some-
what in the type of materials used. Not surprisingly, materials in which
extended text predominates are most often used in immersion classes,
followed by extended French and ESL. Presumably this is because
subject-matter instruction is provided (in varying amounts) in these
three programs, and students have higher proficiency levels. Materials
used in the other two programs (core French and intensive ESL), which
are language-based as opposed to subject matter-based, have less ex-
tended text.
What is particularly interesting about the profiles that emerge from
an analysis of these five L2 programs is not so much the differences
between them, but rather the similarities. For example, the Part A anal-
ysis revealed that all programs tend to be based on a high degree of
teacher-fronted activities, with little group and/or pair interaction. This
is striking, since several of these L2 programs have been described as
communicative in nature, yet they provide limited opportunities for
students to practice communicating with each other. Since opportunities
for the negotiation of meaning and creative language use in interactions
among nonnative speakers are thought to enhance second language
learning (Long 1981, 1982; Long and Porter 1985), it is surprising (even
considering the small nature of the sample) that more opportunities for
such language practice are not represented in the classroom data for the
five L2 programs represented in these studies. The Part B analysis of
four of these programs also revealed some interesting similarities. Learn-
ers were found to rarely initiate discourse and were seldom asked ques-
tions to which teachers did not already have the answer. Even in the
program described as being the most communicative (French immersion)
learners were quite restricted in their language use opportunities, and
teachers rarely elaborated upon students’ utterances.
The two process-oriented studies were conducted for very different
purposes: to validate the COLT observation scheme and to compare
instruction within one program (i.e., intensive ESL) to prepare the
ground for later process—product-oriented research. As such, they were
necessary and valid. However, descriptive process studies of this type
are of limited value. The crucial question remains as to whether instruc-

300
 Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes

tional differences contribute to differences in learning outcomes. The

two studies presented next address this question.

Process—product-oriented studies
Spada (1984, 1987) used COLT in three classes of an adult communi-
catively based ESL program. This was a six-week intensive summer
program in which each class was observed for five hours a day, once a
week, for four weeks. The study was motivated by an interest in finding
out how different teachers interpreted theories of communicative lan-
guage teaching in their actual classroom practices and to determine
whether differences in the implementation of communicative language
teaching principles had any effect on learning outcomes.
A pre- and posttest design was used for the study. Intermediate-level
learners were given the same battery of proficiency tests during the first
and last weeks of classes. This included the Comprehensive English
Language Test (1970); the Michigan Test of English Language Profi-
ciency (1977) a communicative reading, writing, and speaking test de-
veloped by those working in the ESL program; and a multiple-choice
sociolinguistic and discourse test.’
The classroom observation data were analyzed both qualitatively and
quantitatively using the Part A features of the COLT scheme. Because
these data are numerous, it is not possible to report all of them here.
Instead, the discussion will be limited to a summary of those findings
where qualitative and quantitative differences emerged. (See Spada 1984
and 1987 for details of the observation analyses and findings.) Before a
description of these class differences is provided, it is important to em-
phasize that all three classes were communicatively based (they provided
opportunities for spontaneous language use in group work and teacher-
fronted activities, focused on code and meaning, included integrated
skills practice, etc.). However, classes differed in some ways, particularly
in the amount of time spent on explicit language practice.
The qualitative analysis, which involved an examination of the types
of activities, revealed that one of the classes (class A) was different from
the other two (classes B and C) in the following ways: class A spent
considerably more time on form-based activities (with explicit focus on
grammar), while classes B and C spent more time on. meaning-based
activities (with focus on topics other than language). Classes B and C
also had many more authentic activity types than class A. Furthermore,
the classes differed in the way in which certain activities were carried

7 The sociolinguistic and discourse tests are revised versions of tests developed within
the context of the Development of Bilingual Proficiency Project (Allen et al. 1982,
1983; Harley et al. 1987), Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

301
Nina Spada

out, particularly listening activities. For example, in classes B and C, the

instructors tended to start each listening activity with a set of predictive
exercises. These were usually followed by the teacher reading compre-
hension questions to prepare students for the information they were
expected to listen for. The next step usually involved playing a tape-
recorded passage and stopping the tape when necessary for clarification
and repetition requests. In class A, however, the listening activities usu-
ally proceeded by giving students a list of comprehension questions to
read silently; they could ask teachers for assistance if they had difficulty
understanding any of them. A tape-recorded passage was then played
in its entirety, usually twice, while students answered comprehension
questions.
Some of the quantitative analyses of the remaining categories on Part
A of the scheme confirmed these class differences. For example, in the
content category, class A spent almost twice as much time as class C on
explicit form-based practice and triple the amount of time that class B
spent in this way. Since the distinction between form-based and meaning-
based practice is central to the debate on communicative language teach-
ing, these differences in relative code focus between class A and classes
B and C led the investigator to examine whether relative degrees of form
and meaning-based instruction contributed differently to various aspects
of learners’ L2 proficiency.
To investigate this question, two comparison groups were formed:
one that compared the means of class A to those of classes B and C
combined (C1), and another that compared the means between classes
B and C (C2). These groups were compared in analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA),* in which the seven posttest proficiency measures were
separately analyzed to determine whether learners in one class improved
more on these measures than learners in another. The results of this
ANCOVA indicated that type of instruction accounted significantly for
differences in improvement on the listening and speaking tests in the
first comparison (i.e., class A compared with classes B and C) and on
the discourse test in the second comparison (i.e., class B compared with
class C). Further analyses indicated that learners in classes B and C
improved significantly more than learners in class A on the listening test.
Also, learners in class B improved more than learners in class C on the
discourse test. In addition, while learners in classes B and C improved
on the speaking test (although not significantly for class C), learners in
class A got worse.” There were no other measures that were significantly
8 An ANCOVA was used so that any initial differences in the subjects’ pretest perfor-
mance that might have confounded differences between the groups as revealed in their
posttest scores could be statistically controlled.
9 A closer examination of the speaking test data revealed that the results were probably
due to differences in pre- and posttest evaluators’ assessment of learners’ performance

302
 Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes
related to instructional differences. It is important to note, however, that
there was a difference between the means of class A and classes B and
C on the grammar test, indicating higher scores for class A. This did
not reach statistical significance.
In interpreting the different performance of learners on the listening
test, the investigator examined both quantitative and qualitative differ-
ences in the listening practice offered in the three classes. The quantitative
results revealed that class A spent considerably more time in listening
practice than the other two classes, yet class A improved the least.
However, because the listening practice in this class did not prepare
learners for the listening input as carefully as the listening comprehension
instruction did in classes B and C, the investigator concluded that qual-
itative rather than quantitative differences in instruction seemed a more
plausible explanation for significantly more improvement in listening
comprehension in classes B and C.
It was more difficult to interpret the differential performance of learn-
ers on the discourse test, since class B, which improved significantly
more than class C, spent very little time focusing on this particular aspect
of language. However, this class did spend more time than class C
focusing on code (this included grammatical and functional aspects of
code). This additional time spent on various code-related aspects of
language, combined with the fact that the discourse test had items on
it that measured both grammatical and discoursal aspects of language,
may have contributed to these findings. However, as the investigator
points out, improvement in discourse competence may be more related
to such factors as the amount of reading and writing learners do outside
the classroom, which was not considered in the study.
Because the differences in performance on the speaking test were
confounded by differences in the evaluators’ assessments from pre- to
posttest administration in class A, it was not possible to establish direct
relationships between performance on this measure and differences in
instructional treatment. However, separate t-test analyses of the pre-
and posttest speaking scores indicated a significant improvement for
class B but not for class C. When a closer examination of the speaking
activities in these classes was made, it was discovered that while learners
in class B were encouraged to focus on both code and meaning in their
speaking practice, learners in class C were rarely asked to focus their
attention on code. This was interpreted as support for the argument that
a focus on both code and meaning is required for the development of
oral communication skills. (See Spada 1984 for a further discussion of
the speaking test data.)

rather than to the effects of differences in instruction. That is, the posttest evaluator
was a “harder marker” than the pretest evaluator.

303
Nina Spada

In a second study using COLT to investigate relationships between

instructional input and learning outcomes, Allen and his colleagues
(1987) observed eight grade 11 core French classes and analyzed the
observation data using both Part A and Part B of the COLT scheme.
These classes were selected because they had been described by teachers
and schoolboard personnel as representing different approaches to in-
struction. That is, while some classes were described as ‘‘analytical or
structurally oriented,” others were described as “experiential or func-
tionally oriented.” The investigators used COLT to determine: (1)
whether and how these different orientations to instruction were man-
ifested in classroom teaching behaviors and (2) whether different in-
structional orientations would lead to different learning outcomes.
Each class was observed four times over the regular school year. In
addition, students were given a battery of proficiency tests that included
a multiple-choice grammar test, a written exercise (writing an informal
request in a note), another written exercise (writing a formal letter of
request), and a listening comprehension test. In addition to these tests,
a randomly selected sample of students participated in an oral interview.
All tests were administered on a pre- and posttest basis.
Based on the findings of the Part A and Part B features analysis, the
investigators rank-ordered the eight classes on an experiential-analytical
scale and divided them into two distinct groups: experiential (Type E)
and analytical (Type A).’° Two classes fell into the Type E group, and
the remaining six into the Type A group. The results of the Part A
analysis in which statistically significant differences were found revealed
that Type A classes spent more time than Type E classes on topics.
controlled by the teacher and on activities involving the use of minimal
written text. In addition, there was a tendency (not statistically signifi-
cant) for Type A classes to spend more time focusing exclusively on
form, whereas Type E classes spent more time focusing on topics other
than language. There were minimal differences in terms of participant
organization, although contrary to expectations, the Type E classes
tended to spend more time in whole-class interaction than Type A classes.
Therefore, while there were a few categories on Part A of the scheme
where statistically significant differences were found, categories such as
participant organization, explicit focus on language, student modality,
and source of materials did not yield significant differences. The inves-
tigators concluded that “‘none of the classrooms correspond to a pro-
totypic Type A prégram (i.e. one in which only analytic activities are
used), or to a prototypic Type E program (i.e. one in which only ex-
10 Classes were categorized as Type E or Type A by taking the total percentage of time
spent on each of the experiential features in Parts A and B of COLT (e.g., group work,
unpredictable language use, sustained speech, focus on topics/meaning, reaction to
message), adding them together for each class, and ranking the individual class totals.

304
 Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes
periential activities are used). The classrooms in this sample fall some-
where in between the two extremes” (Allen et al. 1987: 65).
The Part B analysis revealed several categories where statistically sig-
nificant differences emerged. For example, students in Type E classes
spent a greater amount of time producing sustained speech, reacting to
message, and expanding each other’s utterances than students in Type
A classes. In addition, students in Type E classes were less restricted in
language use than students in Type A classes. Finally, while teachers in
Type A classes reacted significantly more to code than message, teachers
in Type E classes did the reverse.
The analysis of the possible effects of these instructional differences
on learning outcomes was done in three stages. First, the performance
of learners in the eight classes that formed the two instructional groups
(“experiential” and ‘“analytical”) was compared in an analysis of co-
variance using learners’ pretest scores as the covariate. The results of
this analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between
the two groups on any of the proficiency measures. The only measure
that came close to discriminating between the two groups (but failed to
reach statistical significance) was the grammar test. In the second stage
of the analysis, the performances of learners in only the two most extreme
classes from each end of the experiential and analytical continuum were
compared. The results indicated significant differences between groups
on the grammar test, with Group A showing more improvement than
Group E. There were no significant differences between groups on any
other measure. In the third stage of the analysis, the investigators cor-
related the adjusted posttest class means on each proficiency measure
with all categories of Parts A and B of the COLT scheme. Since these
data are numerous, only a summary is provided. It is important to
emphasize that few of the correlations between the COLT categories
and proficiency measures reached statistical significance. However, as
the investigators point out, their intention was to look for patterns of
consistency in these correlations, in order to identify possible areas of
investigation for future studies.
The correlational analyses between Part A of COLT and the profi-
ciency measures revealed that “‘the profile of a successful classroom is
one where the teacher does relatively more talking compared with in-
dividual students to the class as a whole; relatively more time is spent
on classroom management; more time is spent on form-focused activities
than on general discussion; the students themselves spend relatively little
time speaking; and visual aids and L2 materials are used relatively often”
(Allen et al. 1987: 89) The findings based on correlational analyses of
the Part B features and proficiency measures indicated that genuine
questions, reaction to message, and topic incorporation were positively
related to improvement, whereas sustained speech by students, predict-

305
Nina Spada

able questions, and reaction to code were negatively related. These results
imply that learners benefited from both the analytical and experiential
aspects of instruction.
A comparison of the results of the process—product-oriented studies
reveals both differences and similarities. In the two studies, learners
received instruction that provided both form and meaning-based prac-
tice. However, classes differed in the degree to which each was provided.
For example, in Spada’s study, the Part A features analysis of COLT
confirmed that all three classes were communicatively oriented, with
meaning-based instruction provided in both group and teacher-centered
ways. However, the classes differed in the degree to which instruction
focused explicitly on the linguistic aspects of the second language. In
the Allen et al. study, the classes were also found to differ in the relative
amount of time spent on form and meaning-based instruction. However,
classes were also found to differ in other ways based on a combined
Part A and Part B features analysis of the type of instruction in these
classes. Although this permitted a more detailed analysis of classroom
behaviors, it also resulted in some rather mixed profiles for analytical
and experiential classes. For example, one class which spent over 60%
of the time focusing on code was not placed into the analytical category
because it scored sufficiently high on a number of other experiential
categories (i.e., use of extended text, sustained speech, reaction to mes-
sage, student initiations, etc.) to permit it a place in the experiential
group. This presents problems regarding the placement procedures for
classes in these categories and raises the important question as to whether
certain features of analytical and experiential instruction should be
weighted more heavily than others. Nonetheless, there were two classes
in the Allen et al. study that differed most greatly in the amount of form
and meaning-based practice provided. These classes were the ones that
represented the extreme analytical and experiential profiles (the analyt-
ical class spent 70% of time on form; the experiential class spent 60%
of time on meaning). It is these classes which best permit a comparison
with those in Spada’s study regarding the contributions of relative form
and meaning-based instruction to L2 proficiency.
It will be recalled that when the ANCOVAs were carried out in these
studies, Allen and his colleagues found an advantage for grammatical
ability when the instruction was primarily form-based, and no advantage
for communicative ability when the instruction was primarily meaning-
based. In Spada’s study, in which learners were receiving essentially
meaning-based instruction with varying amounts of code-related prac-
tice, somewhat different results were obtained. That is, while there was
a tendency for learners who received more form-based instruction to
perform better on the grammatical test, learners receiving less form-
based instruction did not obtain significantly lower scores on this mea-

306
 Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes
sure and, furthermore, performed better on some of the other measures
(e.g., discourse speaking and listening). These results are discussed fur-
ther in the Conclusion.

Conclusion

The results of the studies using COLT confirmed that there are indeed
measurable differences in the way in which instruction is carried out
both within and across different L2 programs. The results have also
indicated that there are similarities in the kinds of instruction provided
in these programs. This should not come as a surprise because as class-
room teachers, we know that different language teaching methodologies
overlap to different degrees in their instructional characteristics. Clearly,
it is this overlap of complex teacher and learner behaviors that makes
it difficult to directly relate specific instructional behaviors to learning
outcomes.
Nonetheless, the two process-product studies that used COLT to cap-
ture instructional variation in different L2 programs both found that
there were considerable between-class differences to show that the type
of instruction was either more form-based or meaning-based. What is
interesting to note, however, is that the two studies obtained different
results regarding the contributions of form and meaning-based instruc-
tion to L2 learning. The Allen et al. study indicated that primarily form-
focused instruction led to the development of higher grammatical abil-
ities than primarily meaning-based instruction. However, instruction
that was primarily meaning-based did not lead to higher levels of com-
municative ability. This latter finding is not consistent with the results
of other studies, which have reported that learners receiving more
meaning-based instruction perform significantly better on communica-
tive measures and no differently on grammatical measures than learners
receiving more form-based instruction (Savignon 1972; Thomas 1987).
Indeed, these results are more consistent with the findings of Spada’s
study, where a focus on form within meaning-based instruction led to
similar levels of grammatical ability and higher levels of communicative
ability on some measures. Perhaps an explanation for these different
findings is that the experiential classes in the Allen et al. study did not
provide as much or the same kind of meaning-based instruction as the
other studies. This is possible, particularly since the classes in the other
studies were in adult L2 programs that were experimenting with inno-
vations in communicative L2 teaching, whereas the classes in the Allen
et al. study were in a more traditional program.
Although more research is needed to determine how form and
meaning-based instruction can contribute to different aspects of learners’
307
Nina Spada

L2 abilities, it seems reasonable to conclude on the basis of the studies

reviewed here that neither an extreme form-focused nor meaning-focused
approach leads to the development of both grammatical and commu-
nicative abilities. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that instruc-
tion that is primarily meaning-based but provides opportunities for
“srammatical consciousness raising” (Rutherford 1987) or explicit focus
and attention to code, particularly at times when the apparent need
arises (Long, 1987), probably works best. One implication of these
findings for current teacher education programs in ESL is that continued
training in the development of communicative methodologies, materials,
and instructional techniques should be encouraged. However, perhaps
a more important implication is that such teacher training programs
must not lose sight of the necessity to provide effective instruction and
guidance in how to incorporate the teaching of code within a commu-
nicative framework.

308
 "(P86L “IOSAL *O'C ‘uoisurysem) £8,

309
Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes

TOSAL “O ‘(‘sp2) 1o]Av], “gq'g pure “WaIQ “yy “equioospueH ‘f ur ,awayss UONeAIasqO Ue :3uryoea} asensur] JO UOeIUATIO
dANKITUNUIWIOD SY] ,, “epeds "N pur ‘YyooIy ‘WW ‘UaT[y “dq Wor sioyine syi puke TOSAL jo uorssiuiiad 343 yum paiutiday
SAONVYALLN 'S
SJONVYALLN L/S JO NOLLVUOdUOONI
JO NOLLVHOdUOONI
Appendix 1 : COLT scheme
waANTsSAO (saanulw )NOSSI1 Loafans
aLva (s)aavuo YIHOVAL
TOOHDS
V ed :(1109) 8uryovay a3enZury] jo uopEUZO saneoFUNUTWOD
Nina Spada

Appendix 2: Modified version of the COLT

scheme: Part A —

|
32
Identifica-
tionMaterials
of
JensiA
2 | papuaixg

e peur
pepueIx”
It.
MATERIALS
Type Wr peur
o aI (e)
asensueleieg
VISIT
NO.: uONe DIY
uonnedsy
Suna
pnoyje suipeay
Sulpray
sulyeads
MODALITY
STUDENT suruaisiq]
“qe [d/[PAON
2107 /seWe
Other
uonouny
OBSERVER:
DATE: AZ0}ou0yg

esa
Language
opics| Sr ee ee eee
2Inpac01g
CONTENT quowiaseuryy

DIS >
[enpraipuy
Pee eae
S
°
+E
5 leg

cae
ORGAN
PARTIC.
Sale|
Den
(S):
GRADELESSON
(Min.): 14°15
18219
1:7
28:
245252627
22-23
21)
30)
20
29
31
111213
10
89)
67
34°55)
16

|
Class
EPISODES
&
ACTIVITIES
w

SCHOOL:
SUBJECT:
TEACHER:Col.
1
2Ee

310
Questions and tasks

Chapter 16 (Lange)

1. Summarize the characteristics of effective teachers outlined by

Lange. In what ways is his treatment of teacher effectiveness similar to /
different from that of Richards in Chapter 1?

2. Compare Lange’s statement on the effective teacher with that of

Bartlett in Chapter 13.

3. Analyze a teacher education program you are familiar with. To

what extent does it deal with the five areas of knowledge and practice
that characterize reflective teaching? To what extent does it incorporate
the nine core features of teacher education programs?

4. Why does Lange suggest that the base discipline for the preparation
of second language teachers should be education, not linguistics?

5. In what ways are the various principles outlined by Lange reflected

in the postbaccalaureate program of teacher development at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota?

Chapter 17 (Johnson)

6. What does Johnson mean by the term language across the

curriculum?

7. Could Johnson’s language awareness course be usefully incorpo-

rated into teacher preparation programs aimed at native speakers? If so,
what modifications would you make to the program as outlined?

8. Record or otherwise obtain samples of language corresponding to

Johnson’s “operative,” “interactive,” and “informative” modes. Analyze
these. What insights do they provide? How might such a task be carried
out with teachers-in-preparation?

311
Part VI

Chapter 18 (Dubin and Wong)

9. What, according to Dubin and Wong, are the major differences
between pre- and inservice teacher education that need to be taken into
account in planning inservice programs?

10. Using the questions in Part 1 of the Dubin and Wong chapter as a
point of departure, develop a needs analysis instrument for an inservice
context you are familiar with. Use the instrument to carry out a needs
analysis.

11. To what extent are the issues raised in Part 1 of Dubin and Wong’s
chapter reflected in Part 2?

Chapter 19 (Spada)

12. What are some of the ways in which observation schemes can be
incorporated in teacher preparation programs?

13. In what ways does Spada’s chapter complement that by Day (Chap-
ter 4)?

14. Analyze part of a live or recorded lesson using part of the COLT
scheme. What difficulties did you experience? What insights did you
obtain into the lesson you analyzed that were not immediately apparent
from a casual, unstructured observation?

312
References

Abbot, G., and P. Wingard (eds.). 1981. The Teaching of English as an Inter-
national Language. Glasgow: Collins.
Abbott, S., and R. M. Carter. 1985. Clinical supervision and the foreign lan-
guage teacher. Foreign Language Annals 18: 25-9.
Abbs, P. 1986. The poisoning of the Socratic idea. The Guardian (January 13).
Abramson, L. V., M. E. P. Seligman, and J.D. Teasdale. 1978. Expectancy
changes in depression and schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology
87: 102-9.
Abramson, L. V., M. E. P. Seligman, and J. D. Teasdale. 1978. Learned help-
lessness in humans: critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology 87: 49-74.
Acheson, K., and M. D. Gall. 1980/1987. Techniques in the Clinical Supervision
of Teachers: Preservice and Inservice Applications. New York: Longman.
(Second edition published in 1987.)
Adams, R., and B. Biddle. 1970. Realities of Teaching: Explorations with Video-
tape. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Alinsky, S. D. 1971. Rules for Radicals: Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.
New York: Random House.
Allen, J. B. P., E. Bialystock, J. Cummins, R. Mougen, and M. Swain. 1982.
The development of bilingual proficiency: interim report on the first year
of research. Unpublished manuscript. Ontario Institute for Studies in Ed-
ucation, Toronto.
Allen, J. B. P., S. Carroll, J. Burtis, and V. Gaudino. 1987. The core French
observation study. In Allen et al. (eds.), The Development of Bilingual
Proficiency: final report. Volume II: Classroom treatment. Unpublished
manuscript. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.
Allen, J. P. B., J. Cummins, R. Mougen, and M. Swain. 1983. The development
of bilingual proficiency. Second year report. Unpublished manuscript. On-
tario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.
Allen, P., M. Fréhlich, and N. Spada. 1984. The communicative orientation
of language teaching: an observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. A.
Orem, and B.P. Taylor (eds.), On TESOL ’83. Washington, D.C.:
TESOL.
Allwright, D. 1983. Classroom-centered research on language teaching and
learning: a brief historical overview. TESOL Quarterly 17(2): 191-204.
1988. Observation in the Language Classroom. London: Longman.
Allwright, D., and K. M. Bailey. 1990. Focus on the Language Classroom: An
Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

313
References
Apple, M. 1975. Scientific interests and the nature of educational institutions.
In W. Pinar (ed.), Curriculum Theorizing. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchen.
Asher, A. L. 1983. Language acquisition diaries: developing an awareness of
personal learning strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis. School for Inter-
national Training, Brattleboro, Vermont.
Atkinson, M. J., and J. Heritage (eds.). 1986. Structures of Social Action: Studies
in Conversation Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M. 1980. An introspective analysis of an individual’s language learn-
ing experience. In R. Scarcella and S. Krashen (eds.), Research in Second
Language Acquisition: Selected Papers of the Los Angeles Second Language
Research Forum. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
1983. Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: looking
at and through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger and M. H. Long (eds.),
Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House.
1985. Classroom-centered research on language teaching and learning. In M.
Celce-Murcia (ed.), Beyond Basics: Issues and Research in TESOL. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House.
Bailey, K. M., and R. Ochsner. 1983. A methodological review of the diary
studies: windmill tilting or social science? In K. M. Bailey, M. H. Long,
and S. Peck (eds.), Second Language Acquisition Studies. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Bailey, L.G. 1977. Observing foreign language teaching: a new method for
teachers, researchers, and supervisors. Foreign Language Annals 10: 641—
8.
Barnes, D. 1976. From Communication to Curriculum. New York: Penguin.
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
Bellack, A., H. M. Kliebard, R. T. Hyman, and F. L. Smith. 1966. The Language
of the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Berliner, D. C. 1984. The half-full glass: a review of research on teaching. In
P. L. Hosford (ed.), Using What We Know about Teaching. Alexandria,
Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
1985. Effective classroom teaching: the necessary but not sufficient condition
for developing exemplary schools. In G. R. Austin and H. Garber (eds.),
Research on Exemplary Schools. New York: Academic Press.
1988. Facets of pedagogical expertise: developing our understanding of ig-
norance and expertise in pedagogy. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Or-
leans, La.
Bernhardt, E. B., and J. Hammadou. 1987. A decade of research in foreign
language teacher education. Modern Language Journal 71: 289-99.
Berreman, G. D. 1962. Behind Many Masks: Ethnographic and Impression
Management in a Hymalayan Village. Monograph No. 4. The Society for
Applied Anthropology.
Birkmaier, E.M. 1973. Research on teaching foreign languages. In R. Travers
(ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand-
McNally.

314
 References
Blair, R. W. 1982. Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House.
Blass, L., and M. Pike. 1981. Dear diary: enhancing language learning and
teaching. CATESOL Newsletter (January).
Blatchford, C. H. 1976. The silent way and teacher training. In J. Fanselow and
R. Crymes (eds.), On TESOL ’76. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Blum, R. E. 1984. Effective Schooling Practices: A Research Synthesis. Portland,
Ore.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Bogdan, R., and S. J. Taylor. 1975. Introduction to Qualitative Research Meth-
ods. New York: Wiley.
Borg, W.R., M. Kelley, P. Langer, and M. Gall. 1970. The Mini-course: A
Microteaching Approach to Teacher Education. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Collier-
Macmillan.
Bowers, R. 1987a. Theory and practice in English language teaching. Paper
presented at the 21st annual TESOL Convention, Miami Beach, Florida,
April 21-25.
Bowers, R. (ed.). 1987b. Language Teacher Education: An Integrated Pro-
gramme for EFL Teacher Training. ELT Documents 125. Basingstoke,
England: Modern English Publications/Macmillan.
Breen, M. P. 1985. The social context for language learning: a neglected situ-
ation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(2): 135-58.
British Council. 1981. ELT Documents 110. London: British Council.
No date. Teaching an in Focus. London: British Council
ee

Bronowski, J. 1956. Science and Human Values. New York: Harper & Row.
Brown, C. 1985. Two windows on the classroom world: diary studies and
participant observation differences. In P. Larsen, E. Judd, and D. Mes-
serschmitt (eds.), On TESOL ’84: A Brave New World for TESOL. Wash-
ington, D.C.: TESOL.
Brown, G. 1975. Microteaching. London: Methuen.
Brumfit, C. 1984. Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler-Wall, B. 1979. Diary studies. In E. Arafa, C. Brown, B. Butler-Wall, and
M. Early, Classroom Observation and Analysis. Unpublished manuscript,
Applied Linguistics Ph.D. Program, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cameron, P. H. 1983. Speech and the teacher. Unpublished master’s of edu-
cation dissertation. University of Hong Kong.
Campbell, R. 1967. On defining the objectives of a short-term training program.
TESOL Quarterly, 1(4): 44-51.
Candlin, C., and C. Edelhoff. 1982. Challenges: Teacher’s Handbook. Harlow:
Longman.
Candlin, C.N., and D. F. Murphy (eds.). 1987. Language Learning Tasks.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. 1986. A Nation Prepared:
Teachers for the 21st Century. New York: Carnegie Education Foundation.

315
References
Carney, R. 1986. A critic in the dark. The New Republic (June 30).
Carnine, D., and J. Silbert, 1978. Direct Instruction Reading. Columbus, Oh.:
Merrill.
Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1983. Becoming Critical: Knowing through Action
Research. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge, and Action Research. Gee-
long, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Carroll, J. B. 1963. Research on teaching foreign languages. In N. L. Gage (ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching. 1st ed. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and
Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clifford, R. T., H. L.Jorstad, and D. L. Lange. 1977. Student evaluation of
peer-group microteaching as preparation for student teaching. Modern Lan-
guage Teaching 61: 229-36.
Cogan, M. 1973. Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Cohen, L., and L. Manion. 1980. Research Methods in Education. London:
Croom Helm.
Committee of Inquiry into Reading and the Use of English. 1975. A Language
for Life (The Bullock Report). London: Department of Education and
Science.
Comprehensive English Language Test for Speakers of English as a Second
Language. 1970. New. York: McGraw-Hill.
Cooper, J. M. 1983. Basic elements in teacher education program evaluation:
implications for future research and development. In K. R. Howey and
W.E. Gardner (eds.), The Education of Teachers: A Look Ahead. New
York: Longman.
Cooper, M. H. 1986. The ecology of writing. College English 48(4): 364-75.
Copeland, M. 1980. Affective dispositions of teachers in training towards ex-
amples of supervisory behaviour. Educational Research (74): 37-42.
Copeland, W. D. 1982. Student teachers’ preference for supervisory approach.
Journal of Teacher Education 33(2):32-6.
Coulthard, M., and M. Montgomery (eds.). 1981. Studies in Discourse Analysis.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Crawford-Lange, L. M., and D. L. Lange. 1984. Doing the unthinkable in the
second language classroom: a process for the integration of language and
culture. In T. V. Higgs (ed.), Teaching for Proficiency: The Organizing
Principle. Lincolnwood, Ill.: National Textbook Co.
Crippendorf, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Cruickshank, D. R. 1984. Helping teachers achieve wisdom. Manuscript. Col-
lege of Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
1985. Uses and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappa 66: 704-6.
Cruickshank, D. R., and J. H. Applegate. 1981. Reflective teaching as a strategy
for teacher growth. Educational Learership 38: 553-4.
Cruickshank, .D. R., Holton, J., Fay, D., Williams, J., Kennedy, J., Myers, B.
and J. Hough. 1981. Reflective Teaching: Instructor’s Manual. Blooming-
ton, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa.

316
 References
Curran, C. 1976. Counseling-Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, Ill.:
Apple River Press.
1978. Understanding: A Necessary Ingredient in Human Belonging. Apple
River, Ill.: Apple River Press.
Danielson, D. 1981. Views of language learning from an “older learner.” CA-
TESOL Newsletter (January).
Darling-Hammond, L., A. E. Wise, and S. R. Pease. 1983. Teacher evaluation
in the organizational context: a review of the literature. Review of Edu-
cational Research 53(3): 285-328.
Davies, F., and T. Greene. 1984. Reading for Learning in the Sciences. Edin-
burgh: Oliver & Boyd.
de Bono, E. 1970. Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. New York: Harper
& Row.
Deen, J. 1987. A teacher’s diary study of an experiment in project-based lan-
guage learning. Unpublished manuscript. TESL master’s program, Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles.
Dewey, J. 1933. How we think. In W. B. Kolesnick, 1958, Mental Discipline
in Modern Education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Doff, A., C. Jones, and K. Mitchell. 1984. Meanings into Words, Intermediate.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowling, G., and K. Sheppard. 1976. Teacher training: a counseling focus. In
J. Fanselow and R. Crymes (eds.), On TESOL ’76. Washington, D.C.:
TESOL.
Doyle, W. 1977. Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shul-
man (ed.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 5. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock.
Duckworth, E. 1986. Teaching as research. Harvard Educational Review 56(4):
481-95.
Dulay, H., M. Burt, and S. Krashen. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dunkin, M., and B. J. Biddle. 1974. The Study of Teaching. Washington, D.C.:
University Press of America.
Early, P. 1983. Inservice teacher training in Yugoslavia: A memoir. In J. E.
Alatis, H. H. Stern, and P. Strevens (eds.), Applied Linguistics and the
Preparation of Second Language Teachers: Towards a Rationale. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Early, P., and R. Bolitho. 1981. Reasons to be cheerful for helping teachers to
get problems into perspective: a group counseling approach to the inservice
teacher training of foreign teachers of English. Recherches Echanges 6(1):
13-33.
Elliot, J. 1980. Implications of classroom research for professional development.
In E. Hoyle and J. Megary (eds.), World Yearbook of Education 1980:
Professional Development of Teachers. New York: Nichols.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Emig, J. 1978. Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Com-
munication 28(2): 122-8.
Evertson, C. M., L. M. Anderson, and J. E. Brophy. 1978. The Texas Junior

7
References
High School Study: Report of Process-Product Relationships. Austin: Uni-
versity of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
Fanselow, J. 1977a. Beyond Rashomon: conceptualizing and observing the
teaching act. TESOL Quarterly 11(1): 17-41.
1977b. The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals 10(S):
583-92.
1981. What kind of flower is that? An alternative model for discussing lessons.
Paper presented at the Paris Seminar on Interaction Analysis, The Goethe
Institute, Paris.
1983. Over and over again. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, and P. Strevens (eds.),
GURT ’83. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
1987a. Do mea favor? Don’t do me a favor. Do yourself a favor. Unpublished
manuscript. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
1987b. Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Alternatives in Language
Teaching. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
Fanselow, J., and R. L. Light. 1977. Bilingual, ESOL, and Foreign Language
Teacher Preparation: Models, Practices, Issues. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Filmore, L. W., and C. Valadez. 1986. Teaching bilingual learners. In M. C.
Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd ed. New York:
Macmillan.
Fisher, C. W., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R.S., Cahen, L. W., Dishaw, M. M.,
Moore, J. E., and D.C. Berliner. 1978. Teaching Behaviors, Academic
Learning Time, and Student Achievement. Final report of phase III-B, be-
ginning teacher evaluation study. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development.
Fisher, C. W., D. C. Berliner, N. N. Filby, R. S$. Marliave, L.S. Cahen, and
M. M. Dishaw. 1980. Teaching behaviours, academic learning time and
academic achievement: an overview. In C. Denham and A. Lieberman (eds.),
Time to Learn. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National
Institute of Education.
Flanders, N. A. 1960. Interaction Analysis in the Classroom: A Manual for
Observers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
1970. Analyzing Teaching Behaviour. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Flower, L. S., and J. R. Hayes. 1977. Problem-solving strategies and the writing
process. College English 39(4): 449-61.
Frake, C. O. 1980. Language and Cultural Description: Essays by Charles O.
Frake. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.
Freeman, D. 1982. Observing teachers: three approaches to in-service training
and development. TESOL Quarterly 16: 21-8.
1983. Teacher observation: process and choice. Paper presented at the 17th
annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, Canada.
1987. Moving from teacher to teacher-trainer: some thoughts on getting
started. TESOL Newsletter 21(3).
1989. Teacher training, development and decision-making. TESOL Quarterly
23(1): 27-45.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
1973. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.

318
 References
Frohlich, M., N. Spada, and J. B. P. Allen. 1985. Differences in the communi-
cative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 19: 51-62.
Gage, N. L. (ed.). 1963. Handbook of Research on Teaching. 1st ed. Chicago:
Rand-McNally.
Gaies, S. J. 1983. The investigation of classroom processes. TESOL Quarterly
17(2): 205-17.
Gall, M. D. 1970. The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational
Research 40: 707-21.
Gallagher, J. J., and M. J. Aschner. 1963. A preliminary report on analyses of
classroom interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Devel-
opment 9(3): 183-94.
Gardiner, J. 1987. Associations as instructional resources. In ASHE Handbook
on Teaching and Instructional Resources. Stillwater: Oklahoma State
University.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Gebhard, J. G. 1985. Activities in a teacher preparation practicum: providing
and blocking opportunities for change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
1986. Multiple activities in teacher preparation: opportunities for change.
Paper presented the the 20th annual TESOL Convention, Anaheim,
California.
Gibb, J. 1964. Is help helpful? Forum (February): 25-7.
Good, T. L. 1979. Teaching effectiveness in the elementary school. Journal of
Teacher Education 30(2):52—64.
1981. Teacher expectations and student perceptions: a decade of research.
Educational Leadership 38: 415-23.
Good, T. L., and T. M. Beckerman. 1978. Time on task: a naturalistic study in
sixth grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal 78: 193-201.
Good, T. L., and J. E. Brophy. 1987. Looking in Classrooms. New York: Harper
& Row.
Gore, J. 1987. Reflecting on reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education
37: 33-9.
Gore, J., and V. L. Bartlett. 1987. Pathways and barriers to reflective teaching.
Paper presented at the Australian Curriculum Studies Association Confer-
ence, Sydney, July.
Gower, R., and S. Walters. 1983. Teaching Practice Workbook. London:
Heinemann.
Graesser, A., and J. B. Black (eds.). 1985. The Psychology of Questions. Hills-
dale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Gremmo, M., and D. Abe. 1984. Teaching learning: redefining the teacher’s
role. In P. Riley (ed.), Discourse and Learning. Harlow, England: Longman.
Harley, B., J.B. P. Allen, J. Cummins, and M. Swain. 1987. The develop-
ment of bilingual proficiency: final report. Vol. II: Classroom treatment.
Unpublished manuscript. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
Toronto.
Harmer, J. 1983. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:
Longman.

S19
References
Haskell, J. 1987. A bare-bones bibliography bookshelf. TESOL Newsletter
21(2): ,
Hatch, E. M. 1978. Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House.
Hawley, W. D., S. J. Rosenholtz, H. Goodstein, and T. Hasselbring. 1984. Good
schools: what research says about improving student achievement. Peabody
Journal of Education 61(4): 1-178.
Ho Fong Wan Kam, B. 1985. A diary study of teaching EFL through English
and Chinese to early secondary school students in remedial English class-
rooms. Unpublished master’s thesis. Division of English, Chinese University
of Hong Kong.
Hoetker, J. 1968. Teacher questioning behaviour in nine junior high school
English classes. Research in the Teaching of English 2: 99-106.
Hoetker, J., and W. P. Ahlbrand. 1972. The persistence of the recitation. Amer-
ican Educational Research Journal 6(2): 145-67.
Holden, S. (ed.). 1979. Teacher Training. London: Modern English Publications.
Holly, M. L. 1984. Keeping a Personal-Professional Journal. Geelong, Australia:
Deakin University Press.
Hook, C. 1981. Studying Classrooms. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University
Press.
Hopkins, D. 1985. A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Harlow, England:
Longman.
Hubbard, P., H. Jones, B. Thornton, and R. Wheeler. 1983. A Training Course
for TEFL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huebner, D. 1987. The vocation of teaching. In F. S. Bolin and J. McConnell
Falk (eds.), Teacher Renewal: Professional Issues, Personal Choices. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Jackson, P. W. 1986. Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Jarvis, G. A. 1968. A behavioural observation system for classroom foreign
language skill acquisition activities. Modern Language Journal 52(2): 335—
41.
1972. They’re tearing up the street where I was born. Foreign Language
Annals 6:198—205.
1976. Teacher education: they’re tearing up the street where I was born. In
J. Fanselow and R. L. Light (eds.), Bilingual, ESOL and Foreign Language
Teacher Preparation: Models, Practices and Issues. Washington, D.C.:
TESOL.
Johnson, R. K. 1983. Bilingual switching strategies: a study of the modes of
teacher-talk in bilingual secondary school classrooms in Hong Kong. Lan-
guage Learning and Communication 2(3): 267-85.
Jones, B., A. S. Palinscar, D. S$. Ogle, and E.G. Carr (eds.). 1987. Strategic
Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas. Elm-
hurst, Ill.: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory in cooperation
with Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jordan, R. (ed.). 1983. Case Studies in ELT. Glasgow: Collins.
Joyce, B., and B. Showers. 1981. Teacher training research: working hypothesis
for program design and directions for future study. Paper presented at the

320
 References
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los
Angeles.
Joyce, B., and W. Weil. 1972. Perspectives for Reform in Teacher Education.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
1980. Models of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Keith, M. J. 1987. We’ve heard this song... Or have we? Journal of Teacher
Education 38(3): 20—S.
Kelley, L. G. 1969. 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass.: New-
bury House.
Kemmis, S. 1986. Critical reflection. Unpublished manuscript. Deakin Univer-
sity, Geelong, Australia.
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 1982. The Action Research Planner. Victoria,
Australia: Deakin University Press.
Lambert, R. D. 1987. The case for a national foreign language center: an edi-
torial. Modern Language Journal 71: 1-11.
Lange, D. L. 1979. Suggestions for the continuing development of pre- and in-
service programs for teachers of second language. In J. D. Arendt, D. L.
Lange, and P. M. Myers (eds.), Foreign Language Learning, Today and
Tomorrow: Essays in Honour of Emma M. Birkmaier. New York:
Pergamon.
1983. Teacher development and certification in foreign languages: where is
the future? Modern Language Journal 67: 374-81.
1987a. The nature and direction of recent proposals and recommendations
for foreign language education: a response. Modern Language Journal 71:
240-9.
1987b. Teacher development: building the future on the past. Paper presented
at a policy conference on foreign language education, Retrospect Prospect,
Ohio State University.
Langer, J. 1986. A sociocommunicative view of literacy learning. Plenary pre-
sentation, CATESOL Convention, Oakland, Cal.
Lanier, J. E., and J. W. Little. 1986. Research on teacher education. In M. C.
Wittrock (ed.), Third Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York:
Macmillan.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1983. Training teachers or educating a teacher. In J. E.
Alatis, H. H. Stern, and P. Strevens (eds.), Georgetown University Round
Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Uni-
versity Press.
1986. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Leinhardt, G., and D. Smith. 1984. Expertise in mathematics instruction: subject
matter knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Lightbown, P., and N. Spada. 1987. Learning English in intensive programs in
Quebec schools: report on first year of research. Unpublished manuscript.
Concordia University, Montreal.
Long, M. H. 1980. Inside the “black box”: methodological issues in classroom
research on language learning. Language Learning 30: 1-42.

a74
References

1981. Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (ed.),

Native and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York: New York Academy
of Sciences.
1982. Native speaker non-native speaker conversation in the second language
classroom. In M. Clarke and J. Handscombe (eds.), On TESOL ’82. Wash-
ington, D.C.: TESOL.
1983. Training the second language teacher as a classroom researcher. In J. E.
Alatis, H. H. Stern, and P. Strevens (eds.), GURT ’83: Applied Linguistics
and the Preparation of Second Language Teachers. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
1987. Task-based language teaching and second language acquisition. Plenary
presentation at the TESL Canada Summer Institute Forum, Concordia Uni-
versity, Montreal.
Long, M. H., C. Brock, G. Crookes, C. Deike, L. Potter, and S. Zhang. 1984.
The effect of teachers’ questioning patterns and wait-times on pupil par-
ticipation in public high school classes in Hawaii for students of limited
English proficiency. Technical Report No. 1. Honolulu: University of Ha-
waii, Social Science Research Institute, Center for Second Language Class-
room Research.
Long, M. H., and G. Crookes. 1986. Intervention points in second language
classroom processes. Paper presented at the RELC Regional Seminar, Sin-
gapore, April.
Long, M. H., and P. Porter. 1985. Group interlanguage talk and second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19: 207-28.
Lortie, D. C. 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lunzer, E., and K. Gardner. 1984. Learning from the Written Word. Edinburgh:
Oliver & Boyd.
McDermott, R. L. 1980. Profile: Ray L. Birdwhistell. The Kinesis Report 2(3):
1-16.
McDermott, R. L., K. Gospodinoff, and J. Aron. 1978. Criteria for an ethno-
graphically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts.
Semiotica 24(3/4): 245-75.
McDermott, R. L., and D. Roth. 1978. The social organization of behaviour:
interactional approaches. Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 321-45.
McIntyre, D. 1980. The contribution of research to quality in teacher education.
In E. Hoyle and J. Megary (eds.), World Yearbook of Education 1980:
Professional Development of Teachers. New York: Nichols.
McTaggert, R., and S. Kemmis. 1983. The Action Research Planner. Geelong:
Deakin University Press.
Marzano, R. J., R. S. Brandt, C. $. Hughes, B. F. Jones, B. Z. Presseinsen, S. C.
Rankin, and C. Suhor. 1988. Dimensions of Thinking: A Framework for
Curriculum and Instruction. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Matsumoto, ‘K. 1987. Diary studies of second language acquisition: a critical
overview. JALT Journal 9(1): 17-34.
Mayher, J. S., N. B. Lester, and G. M. Pradl. 1983. Learning to Write/Writing
to Learn. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook.

$22
 References
Medley, D. M. 1979. The effectiveness of teachers. In P. L. Peterson and H. J.
Walberg (eds.), Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings and Implica-
tions. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan.
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Meredith, N. 1984. The murder epidemic. Science 84 (December): 43-8.
Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency. 1977. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan.
Mohlman, G., J. Kierstead, and M. Gundlach. 1982. A research-based inservice
model for secondary teachers. Educational Leadership 40:16—19.
Montessori, M. 1967. The Discovery of the Child. New York: Ballantine.
Moore, T. 1977. An experimental language handicap (personal account). Bul-
letin of the British Psychological Society 30:107-10.
Moskowitz, G. 1971. Interaction analysis: a new modern language for super-
visors. Foreign Language Annals 5(2): 211-21.
Mulkeen, T. A., and T. J. Tetenbaum. 1987. An integrative model of teacher
education and professional development. Educational Horizons (Winter):
85-7.
Murray, D. A. 1968. A Writer Teaches Writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Report to the nation and the Secretary
of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.
Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
1989. Understanding Language Classrooms: A Guide for Teacher Initiated
Action. London: Prentice-Hall.
O’Brien, T. 1981. The E-R-O-T-I model: a stimulating guide for teacher training.
In G. Marsh (ed.), Focus on the Teacher. ELT Documents 110. London:
British Council.
Ochsner, R. 1979. A poetics of second language acquisition. Language Learning
29: 53-80.
Oller, J. W., Jr., and P. A. Richard-Amato (eds.). 1983. Methods That Work:
A Smorgasbord of Ideas for Language Teachers. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
House.
O’Malley, J. M., A. U. Chamot, and C. Walker. 1987. Some applications of
cognitive theory to second language acquisition. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition 9: 287-306.
Orem, R. 1981. TESOL entering the eighties: some professional perspectives.
TESOL Newsletter 15.
Orlich, D., R. Harder, R. Callahan, C. Kravas, D. Kauchak, R. Pendergass, and
A. Keoge. 1985. Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Better Instruction. 2nd
ed. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.
Ornstein, A. C. 1985. Research on teaching: issues and trends. Journal of
Teacher Education 36(6): 27-31.
Paquette, F. A. 1966. Guidelines for teacher education programs in modern
foreign languages: an exposition. Modern Language Journal 50: 323-425.
Peck, R. F., and J. A. Tucker. 1973. Research on teacher education. In R. M. W.
323
References

Travers (ed.), Second Handbook on Research on Teaching. New York:

Macmillan.
Pennington, M. C. 1985. Review of the teacher/learner interaction series. TE-
SOL Quarterly 19(2): 353-6.
1989. Faculty development for language programs. In R. K. Johnson (ed.),
The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Perl, S. 1979. The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in
the Teaching of English 13(4):317-36.
Peterson, P. L., and H. J. Walberg. 1979. Research on Teaching: Concepts,
Findings and Implications. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan.
Philips, S. 1982. The language socialization of teachers: acquiring the “‘cant.”
In G. Spindler (ed.), Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational
Ethnography in Action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pica, T., and C. Doughty. 1985. Input and interaction in the communicative
language classroom: a comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities.
In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies. 1980.
Strength through wisdom: a critique of U.S. capability. Modern Language
Journal 64:9-S7.
Quality schooling and professional education: a critical relationship: planning
for tomorrow’s schools. 1988. Proposal to the Ford Foundation, submitted
on behalf of the Holmes Group through the Office of the Dean, College
of Education, Michigan State University.
Ramani, E. 1987. Theorizing from the classroom. ELT Journal 41(1):3—11.
Rardin, J. 1977. The language teacher as facilitator. TESOL Quarterly
11(4):383-7.
Redfield, D. L., and E. W. Rousseau. 1981. A meta-analysis of experimental
research on teacher questioning behaviour. Review of Educational Research
51:237-45.
Richards, J. C. 1990. The Language Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C., and G. Crookes. 1987. The practicum: a survey of research and
current practices. Paper presented at the 21st annual TESOL Convention,
Miami Beach, Florida.
Richards, J. C., and N. Hino. 1983. Training ESL teachers: the need for needs
assessment. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, and P. Strevens (eds.), GURT ’83:
Applied Linguistics and the Preparation of Second Language Teachers.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Richards, J., and T. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, P. 1984. Discourse and Learning. Harlow, England: Longman.
Rogers, C. 1951. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
1961. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Peterson and H. J. Walberg, Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings and
Implications. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan.
Rosenthal, R., and L. Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalian in the Classroom: Teacher

324
 References
Expectations and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston.
Rowe, M.B. 1973. Teaching Science as Continuous Inquiry. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
1974. Wait time and rewards as instructional variables: their influence on
language, logic and fate control. Part 1: Fate control. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 11: 81-94.
1986. Wait time: slowing down may be a way of speeding up. Journal of
Teacher Education 37: 43-50.
Rutherford, W. 1987. Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching.
London: Longman.
Savignon, S. 1972. Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign
Language Teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Scheflen, A. E. 1973. Communicational Structure. Bloomington: Indiana Uni-
versity Press.
Schenkein, J. 1978. Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction.
New York: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. W., and S. N. Frota. 1986. Developing basic conversational ability
in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In
R. R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Ac-
quisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Schubert, W. H. 1986. Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility. New
York: Macmillan.
Schumann, F. E. 1980. Diary of a language learner: a further analysis. In R.
Scarcella and S. Krashen (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition:
Selected Papers of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Schumann, F. E., and J. H. Schumann. 1977. Diary of a language learner: an
introspective study of second language learning. In H. D. Brown, R. H.
Crymes, and C. A. Yorio (eds.), On TESOL ’77: Teaching and Learning
English as a Second Language — Trends in Research and Practice. Wash-
ington, D.C.: TESOL.
Schwab, J. 1983. The practical 4: something for curriculum professors to do.
Curriculum Enquiry 14: 239-65.
Seelye, H. N. 1984. Teaching Culture. Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook Co.
Sergiovanni, T. J., and R. J. Starratt. 1983. Supervision: Human Perspectives.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shapiro-Skrobe, F. 1982. Interaction in elementary school ESL reading lessons
before and after teacher workshops. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Short, E. C. 1987. Curriculum decision making in teacher education: policies,
program development, and design. Journal of Teacher Education 38(4):
2-12.
Shulman, L. 1987. Knowledge and teaching. Harvard Educational Review 56:
1-22.
Siedow, M.D., D. Memory, and P.S. Bristow. 1985. Inservice Education
for Content Area Teachers. Newark, Del.: International Reading
Association.

B25
References

Simpson, R. L., and J. J. Galbo. 1986. Interaction and learning: theorizing on

the art of teaching. Interchange 17: 37-51.
Sinclair, J. McH., and D. Brazil. 1982. Teacher Talk. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sinclair, J. McH., and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, F. 1971. Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading
and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
1975. Comprehension and Learning: A Conceptual Framework for Teachers.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
1987. A critical pedagogy of classroom practice. Paper presented at the Cur-
riculum Theorizing and Classroom Practices Conference, Bergamo, Ohio,
November.
Soltis, J. F. (ed.). 1987. Reforming Teacher Education: The Impact of the
Holmes Group Report. New York: Teachers College Press.
Spack, R., and C. Sadow. 1983. Student-teacher working journals in ESL fresh-
man composition. TESOL Quarterly 17(4): 575-93.
Spada, N. 1984. The interaction between type of instruction, informal contact,
learner opinions and second language proficiency. Unpublished dissertation.
University of Toronto.
1987. Instructional differences and learning outcomes: a process-product
study of communicative language teaching. Applied Linguistics 8:137-61.
Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Sprinthall, N. A., and N. Thies-Sprinthall. 1983. The need for theoretical frame-
works in educating teachers: a cognitive developmental perspective. In K. R.
Howey and W. E. Gardner (eds.), The Education of Teachers: A Look
Ahead. New York: Longman.
Stallings, J. A., and D. H. Kaskowitz. 1974. Follow through Classroom Ob-
servation Evaluation 1972-1973. Menlo Park, Cal.: Stanford Research
Institute.
Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development.
London: Heinemann.
Stern, H. H. 1983. Toward a multidimensional foreign language curriculum. In
R. G. Mead, Jr. (ed.), Foreign Languages: Key Links in the Chain of Learn-
ing. Reports of the Northwest Conference on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages. Middlebury, Vt.: Northeast Conference.
Stevick, E. 1980. Teaching Language: A Way and Ways. Rowley, Mass.: New-
bury House.
Swaffar, L. K., K. Arens, and M. Morgan. 1982. Teacher classroom practice:
redefining method as task hierarchy. Modern Language Journal 66: 24—
33%
Tarone, E. 1980. Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in in-
terlanguage. Language Learning 30: 417-31.
Taylor, B. P. 1979. Exploring community language learning. In C. Yorio, K.
Perkins, and J. Schachter (eds.), On TESOL ’79. Washington, D.C.:
TESOL.
Telatnik, M. A. 1977. The intensive journal as a self-evaluative instrument for

326
 References
the ESL teacher. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California, Los
Angeles.
1978. The intensive journal as a self-evaluative instrument. Paper presented
at the 1978 annual TESOL Convention, Mexico City.
Tetenbaum, T. J., and T. A. Mulkeen. 1986. Designing teacher education for
the twenty-first century. Journal of Higher Education 57: 621-36.
Thomas, J. 1987. Comparing traditional and communicative approaches to the
teaching of French. TESOL Newsletter: Applied Linguistics Interest Sec-
tion. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Tikunoff, W. J. 1983. Utility of the SBIF Features for the Instruction of Limited
English Proficiency Students. Report No. SBIF-83-R 15/16 for NIE Con-
tract No. 400-80-0026. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educa-
tional Research and Development.
1985. Developing Student Functional Proficiency for LEP Students. Portland,
Ore.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Tikunoff, W. J., D.C. Berliner, and R. C. Rist. 1975. Special Study A: An
Ethnographic Study of Forty Classrooms of the Beginning Teacher Eval-
uation Study Known Sample. Report No. 75-1-5. San Francisco: Far West
Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group. 1986. East Lansing,
Mich.: Holmes Group.
Travers, R. (ed.). 1973. Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago:
Rand-McNally.
Tripp, D. 1987. Theorising Practice: The Teacher’s Professional Journal. Gee-
long, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Ullmann, R., and E. Geva. 1982. The Target Language Observation Scheme
(TALOS). New York Board of Education, Core French Evaluation Project.
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.
van Lier, L. 1984. Discourse analysis and classroom research: a methodological
perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49:111-—
33.
1988. The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and Second-
Language Classroom Research. London: Longman.
Van Manen, M. 1977. Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.
Curriculum Inquiry 6: 205-28.
Walberg, H. J., D. Schiller, and G. D. Haertel. 1979. The quiet revolution in
educational research. Phi Delta Kappa 61:179-83.
Walker, R. 1985. Doing Research: A Handbook for Teachers. London:
Methuen.
Webb, N. M. 1980. A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and in-
dividual settings. Educational Psychologist 15: 69-83.
Widdowson, H. G. 1984. The incentive value of theory in teacher education.
ELT Journal 38(2).
Wieder, L.D. 1974. Language and Social Reality: The Case of Telling the
Convict Code. Paris: Mouton.
Williams, E. 1985. Reading in the Language Classroom. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Willis, J. 1983. Teaching English through English. London: Longman.

327
References
Winne, P. H. 1979. Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive ques-
tions to student achievements. Review of Educational Research 49:13—S0.
Wittrock, M. C. (ed.). 1986. Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd ed. New
York: Macmillan.
Wragg, E. C. 1970. Interaction analysis in the foreign language classroom. Mod-
ern Language Journal 54:116-20.
Wright, T. 1987. Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Zeichner, K. M. 1981-2. Reflective teaching and field-based experience in
teacher education. Interchange 12: 1-22.
1983. Alternative paradigms for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Ed-
ucation 34: 3-9.
Zeichner, K. M., and D. P. Liston. 1985. An inquiry-oriented approach to stu-
dent teaching. Paper presented at the Practicum Conference, Geelong, Aus-
tralia, January 1985.
Zeichner, K. M., and K. Teitlebaum. 1982. Personalized and inquiry-oriented
teacher education: an analysis of two approaches to the development of
curriculum for field-based experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching
8: 95-117.
Zigarmi, P. 1979. Teacher centers: a model for staff development. In A. Lie-
berman and L. Miller (eds.), Staff Development: New Demands, New
Realities, New Perspectives. New York: Teachers College Press.
Zimpher, N. L., and E. A. Ashburn. 1985. Studying the professional develop-
ment of teachers: How conceptions of the world inform the research
agenda. Journal of Teacher Education 6:16—26.
Zumwalt, K. K. 1982. Research on teaching: policy implications for teacher
education. In A. Lieberman and M. W. McLaughlin (eds.), Policy Making
in Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

328
Page numbers in italics indicate material in tables or figures.

Abbs, P., 184, 195 at-task behavior, teacher observation

Abe, D., 83 and coding, 51-2
Acheson, K., 47, 49, 51, 169 audio recordings
action research classroom language program and,
curriculum development and, 62, 275-8, 280-1
63, 64-75 COLT and, 302
developing skills in, 62 diary studies and, 220, 222
see also research mapping (reflective teaching) and,
action-system knowledge, 43 209
Adams, R., 51 self-help supervision and, 165
Adult Immigrant Education Pro- student teacher practicum study
gram (AMEP), see Australian and, 120
Adult Immigrant Education supervisory note taking and, 186
Program teacher observation and, 46
Ahlbrand, W.P., 18, 121 teacher preparation activities and,
Ain Shams University (Egypt), 173 28-9, 164
Alinsky, $.D., 183 Australian Adult Immigrant Educa-
Allen, P., 19, 165, 304, 306, 307 tion Program (AMEP)
alternative supervision, 158-9 conclusion concerning, 75—6
see also supervision curriculum development analysis
AMEP, see Australian Adult Immi- and, 62, 63, 64—75
grant Education Program teachers as researchers and, 64,
(AMEP) 70-3, 75
American Council on Teaching of worksheets for, 77-81
Foreign Languages, 257, 259
American Education Research Asso- Bailey, K.M., 119, 209, 216, 219
ciation, 252 Bailey, L.G., 19
Anderson, L.M., 11 Barnes, D., 18, 90, 92, 191
Apple, M., 205 Bartlett, V.L., 224
appraisal (reflective teaching), Bellack, A.H., 121
212-13 Berliner, D.C., 7, 11, 119
Aron, J., 120 Bernhardt, E.B., 251, 252
Ashburn, E.A., 119 Berreman, G.D., 120
Asher, A.L., 216 Biddle, B.J., 16, 51
assessment, 62 bilingual education, 252
see also evaluation Blatchford, C.H., 158
Atkinson, M.J., 120 Blum, R.E., 9

329
Index

Bogdan, R., 219 classroom management, 274

Bolitho, R., 176 AMEP program worksheet and,
Brazil, D., 275 74, 79
Britten, D., 284 teacher education and, 8-9,
Bronowski, J., 196—7 10-11
Brophy, J.E., 11, 52, 53-4 teacher observation and, 53
Brown, C., 216, 222, 223 classroom observation, see observa-
Brumfit, C., 83 tion; teacher observation
Burt, M., 124 classroom performance
Butler-Wall, B., 217, 224—5 clinical supervision case study and,
172
Candlin, C., 89 clinical supervision and views on,
Candy, Vincent, 195 169-70
Carnegie Forum, 245, 246 see also student teacher entries;
Carney, R., 195 supervision
Carroll, John B., 252 . classroom power relationships (recip-
case studies rocal), 212
Egyptian clinical supervision, classroom practice, reflective teach-
173-81 ing and, 203
teacher preparation activities, 29 classroom role relationships, see role
teachers and LEP students and, 13 relationships (teacher and
training view of teacher prepara- learner)
tion and, 14 classroom rules (student teacher atti-
Yugoslavian clinical supervision, tude exercise), 143
171-3 classroom seating (student teacher
Centre for Developing English Lan- practicum study), 121
guage Teaching (CDELT, classroom teaching
Egypt), 173, 174 clinical supervision in Yugoslavian
Challenges: Teacher’s Handbook case study and, 173
(Chandlin and Edelhoff), 89 student teacher and, 17—18
Chamot, A.U., 247 see also student teacher entries;
children, COLT and, 295 supervision
classroom-centered research (CCR), clinical supervision
20 defining, 168—71
see also research Egyptian case study of, 173-81
classroom interaction (AMEP work- Yugoslavian case study of, 171-3
sheet), 81 see also supervision
classroom language program Cogan, M., 159
aim of, 269-70 Cohen, L., 63—4
evaluation of, 280-1 collaboration with colleagues, 210,
interpersonal aspect of, 274—5 211
language laboratory exercises, collaborative supervision, 159—60
271-2 see also supervision
pedagogical aspect of, 275-80 COLT (Communication Orientation
physiological aspect of, 273-4 of Language Teaching), 18, 19,
spoken language and, 271 116, 165, 189
teaching of, 270-1 classroom instructional character-
teaching materials and, 272—3 istics and, 298—300

330
 Index

communicative language teaching Curran, C., 111, 112, 160, 161

theory and, 301 curriculum development
communicative orientation and, action research analysis and,
296-7, 306 64-75
ESL and, 293, 295, 296, 297, 299, AMEP and, 63
300, 301, 308 teachers and, 62
FSL and, 293, 295, 296, 297, 299,
300 Davies, F., 280
instructional input and learning Day, R.R., 19
output, 304-6 De Bono, E., 162
instructional program types and, decentralization (societal structure),
294-5 25D)
intensive instruction and, 297-8 Deen, J., 217, 224
as observation instrument, 293—4 demographic shifts (U.S.), 255
process-oriented studies and, 295— demonstrations, 32
301 development strategy (student
process-product orientation studies teacher), 103—4
and, 301-7 Dewey, J., 207
program similarities and, 300 diary studies
results of studies using, 307-8 benefits of, 224-5
communicative activity, 31-32, 33, clinical supervision case study
34 (Egypt) and, 179
communicative orientation (COLT), defining, 215
296-7, 306 for language learning, 215-18,
competence 222—4
LEP students and, 12—13 language learning theory and,
reflective teaching and, 248-9 221-2
comprehensible input concept, 191 learning process and, 223—4
Comprehensive English Language note taking in class and, 222
Test, 301 procedures for keeping, 218-21
contact-matter teaching, 4-9, 14 see also learning logs
contesting (reflective teaching), directive supervision, 156-8
211-12 see also supervision
Cooper, J.M., 267 discourse analysis, 281
Copeland, M., 107, 158 discourse (COLT), 297, 303
Coulthard, M., 275 DISTAR program, teacher education
counseling, see supervision analysis and, 10
Crawford-Lange, L.M., 258 Doughty, C., 63
creative supervision, 162—3 Dulay, H., 124
see also supervision Dunkin, M., 16
Crippendorf, K., 219
Crookes, G., 7 Early, P., 176, 284
Cruickshank, D.R., 202, 248 Edelhoff, C., 89
cultural awareness (teacher develop- educational ethnography, see ethno-
ment program), 262 graphic approach
see also ethnographic approach Egyptian clinical supervision study,
cultural environment (SLA), 258 173-81
see also ethnographic approach see also supervision

331
Index

elicitation (teacher preparation activ- evaluation

ity), 33 . AMEP program and, 75
elocution, 273 AMEP program and teacher-
engaged time, see time-on-task (en- dominated lesson, 67—8
gaged time) concept AMEP program and teacher talk
English as a foreign language and behavior, 72-3
(EFL) classroom exchanges, 277-8
Egyptian case study and, 173-81 of classroom language program,
ethnographic approach and, 282, 280-1
289, 290 clinical supervision and, 172,
Yugoslavian case study and, 177
171-3 as different from assessment, 62
English as a second language (ESL) journal use and, 238, 240
COLPand 2932295; :296; 297, reflective teaching and peer, 248
299, 300, 301, 308 self-evaluation, 63, 74
ethnographic observation example of teacher, 4—5
and, 45, 54-7 of teacher development program,
journal use analysis and, 232, 237 266-8
SCORE and, 49-53 see also supervision
teacher development and, 251-4, Evertson, C.M., 11
262, 264 experimental teacher preparation
teaching practicum study and, practices, 26—7, 36
118, 119, 124, 129 see also teacher preparation
errors activities
analytical skills development and, experimentation, teacher develop-
145 ment and, 255, 257
feedback (supervisory) and, 185,
192 Fanselow, J., 16, 18, 19, 21, 120,
student teacher practicum study 124, 129, 158-9, 163, 165
and treatment of, 123—5 Far West Laboratory for Education
ethnographic approach Research and Development, 6
American course in Hungary and, feedback, 226, 237
288-91 AMEP program and, 68-9, 71
English as a second and foreign effective teaching and, 7
language and, 282 of errors (student teacher practi-
inservice training and, 282—4 cum study), 124
local culture and IST partici- role relationships analysis and, 87
pant’s teaching situation and, supervision and, 185, 187
286-8 teacher development program and >)
preparatory information-gathering 265
process and, 285-6 video viewing and role playing ex-
teacher observation and, 44, 45-6, ercise and, 150
47 Fisher, C.W., 11
teacher observation example and, Flanders, N.A., 19, 163, 179
54-7 Flanders’s sign system, 19
see also cultural awareness FOCUS (Foci in Communication
(teacher development program); Used in Settings), 19, 116, 163,
cultural environment (SLA) 165, 189

332,
 Index

discussion of teaching example How We Think (Dewey), 207

and, 23 Huebner, D., 251
teaching practicum research and,
120, 127, 131 ideal student, student teacher atti-
Freeman, D., 112, 158, 162, 183 tude exercise and, 138, 143
Freire, P., 22, 129, 163, 184, 196, individual praise, 58
213, 259 inference, 48
French as a second language (FSL), information (increased flow in),
COLT and;.293,:295;:296;:297, 255
299, 300 information mode (pedagogical as-
Frohlich, M., 19, 165, 295-6 pect of classroom language pro-
Frota, $.N., 223 gram), 278-80
inservice training (IST)
American course in Hungary and,
Gage, N.L., 119
288-91
Galbo, J.J., 204
English as second and foreign lan-
Gall, M.D., 47, 49, 51, 169
guage and, 282
Gardner, K., 280
general principles of, 282—6
Gebhard, J.G., 16, 17, 24
local culture and participant’s
Geva, E., 19, 165
teaching situation and, 286—8
Gibb, J., 105-6, 111, 114, 116
instruction methods (reactions to),
Good, T.L., 12, 52, 53-4, 119
96-7
Gore, J., 204, 248
Interaction Analysis (Flanders), 163
Gospodinoff, R.L.K., 120
interactive mode (pedagogical aspect
grammar (COLT), 303, 305, 306,
of classroom language program),
307, 308
277-8
Greene, T., 280
intervention
Gremmo, M., 83
defined, 105
group discussions, 32, 33, 35
see also student teacher
grouping of learners, 12
intervention
supervision analysis and, 187-8
investigative projects (student
group management, 53, 59
teacher), 21—2
group task (AMEP program), 67-8,
69, 74, 78
Jackson, P.W., 251
Jacobson, L., 52
Hammadou, J., 251, 252 Jarvis, G.A., 16, 22, 129, 163,184
Handbook of Research on Teaching journals, see diary studies; learning
(American Education Research logs
Association), 252 Joyce, B., 119
Hawley, W.D., 246
Heritage, J., 120 Keith, M.J., 250
Hino, N., 252 Kemmis, S., 63, 204
Hispanic ethnic group, 255 knowledge
Hoetker, J., 18, 121 distinction between subject-matter
Ho Fang Wan Kan, B., 217, 223 and action-system, 43
Holly, M.L., 209 twenty-first century and, 254-5
Holton, J., 248 see also self-knowledge
Hook, C., 76 Krashen, S., 124, 191

333
Index

Lange, D.L.,. 25752585266, 267 macroteaching, see teacher educa-

language teacher development, see tion, macro (holistic education)
teacher development approach to
language used in classroom, see McTaggart, R., 63
classroom language program managerial skills, see classroom
Lanier, J.E., 118 management
Larsen-Freeman, D., 250, 283 Manion, L., 63—4
learning logs mapping (reflective teaching),
benefits of using, 231-9, 240 209-10
giving a journal assignment and, Matsumoto, K., 219
228-30 Mayher, J.S., 227
methodology survey and, 228, Medley, D.M., 9
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, Mehan, H., 120, 196
2363237 Meredith, N., 125
motives for using, 227-8 methodologies, 253
procedure for using, 228-31 overlapping of, 307
SLA and, 228, 229, 230, 231, methodology survey, journal use
2395235 and, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233,
sociolinguistics, 228, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237
234, 235, 236 Michigan Test of English Language
teacher response to, 230-1 Proficiency, 301
see also diary studies microteaching, see teacher education,
lectures, 32 micro (training view of teaching)
Leinhardt, G., 43 approach to
LEP students, see limited English minicourses, 14
proficiency (LEP) students model of teacher development,
lesson plans, 29 254-7
lesson preparation analysis (AMEP see also teacher development
program), 73 Montessori, M., 183
lesson transcripts, 29 Moskowitz, G., 19, 163
Lester, N.B., 227 motivation, 274
licensure, 261, 266 analysis of tasks and activities and ’
Light, R.L., 16 60-1
Lightbown, P., 297, 306 teacher observation and, 53—4
limited English proficiency (LEP) movement patterns (teacher observa-
students tion), 52
active teaching and, 13 Mulkeen, T.A., 254, 256, 266—7
competence and, 12—13
see also students National Centre for English Lan-
Liston, D.P., 202 guage Teaching and Research
listening activities (COLT), 300, 302 (Australia), 28, 65
Little, J.W., 118 National Holmes Group, 245, 246
Long, M.H., 7, 20, 63 nondirective supervision, 160—1
Lortie, D.C., 164, 188-9 see also supervision
Lunzer, E., 280 note taking
diary studies and, 222
McDermott, Ray, 120 observing and supervising, 186—7
McIntyre, D., 14 Nunan, David, 70

334
 Index
O’Brien, T., 175 dent teacher professional
observation, 15, 166, 175, 222, 224 development
AMEP program and, 66—70 professionalism
clinical supervision and, 168, 177 b) in second language teacher, 3
179 teacher development and, 246,
grouping data, 187-8 250-1, 258
interpreting data, 189-91 professional meetings, 168
self-observation, 191-3, 201 psycholinguistically motivated studies
student teacher practicum study of teaching, 7
and, 120, 124, 126
of teaching act, 18-21 questions, 66
technical language for transcrip- classroom language example of,
tions, 188-9 ZT
transcribing and note taking, COLT and, 297
186-7 effective use of, 5—6, 7, 8, 9
video viewing exercise and, 147 reflective teaching and, 211
see also COLT; FOCUS; SCORE; student teacher practicum and,
TALOS; teacher observation 127,
Ochsner, R., 219
O’Malley, J.M., 247 Ramani, E., 66
operative mode (pedagogical aspect Rardin, J., 158
of classroom language program), reading, time-on-task concept of,
275-6 6-7
Orem, R., 103 reflective teaching
analysis of, 204—5, 213-14
pair discussion, 32, 33, 35, 272 appraisal of, 212—213
panel discussion, 34 contesting, 211—12
Paquette, F.A., 259 critical reflective teaching, 205—7
paradigms (clinical supervision case defining, 202-3
study), 177-9 informing, 210-11
Peace Corps, 283 mapping, 209-10
Peck, R.F., 119 reflective teacher analysis, 207-13,
Philips, S., 119 247-50
Pica, T., 63 research, 54
Porter, P.A., 216-17, 222 analytical skills analysis and, 144
power relationships (reciprocal class- classroom-centererd, 20
room), 212 COLT and, 293, 294
practice teaching, see student teacher curriculum development and ac-
entries tion, 62, 63, 64-75
Pradl, G.M., 227 diary study, 215
preservice training (PST), contrasted effective schooling, 9-10
to inservice training (IST), 282— effective teacher, 246—7
3 ESL and, 253
President’s Commission on Foreign low-inference instruments and, 48
Languages and International supervision, 158
Studies (1980), 245 teacher development program and,
problem-solving activities, 22 264-5
professional development, see stu- teacher education, 3, 4, 5, 7, 252

335
Index

research (cont.) teacher development and, 257—60

teacher expectations and, 52 Second Language and Cultures pro-
teaching practicum, 118-19, gram (University of Minnesota),
129-30 260-6
Richards, J.C., 35, 82, 247, 252 see also teacher development
Riley, P., 83 second language teacher preparation
Rodgers, T., 82 programs, see teacheer
Rogers, Carl, 111, 112, 160 education
role playing selective verbatim technique, 47
interactive mode (pedagogical as- self-esteem, directive supervision and,
pect of classroom language pro- 156, 157-8
gram) and, 278 self-help—explorative supervision,
student teacher development and 163-6
video viewing and, 146-50 see also supervision
supervisors and, 167 self-knowledge
role relationships (teacher and attitudes about language teaching
learner) and, 135—44
attitudes and values, 85-8 teacher and learner role relation-
introduction (for preservice train- ships and, 85—8
ees) to teacher and learner roles seminars, 15, 168
and, 92—4 discussion of teaching (example)
new teaching materials and ideas and, 23
and, 88-92 student teacher practicum and,
nondirective supervision and, 125-6
161 Shapiro-Skrobe, F., 18
questions and doubts concerning Short, E.C., 267
focus on, 94—5 Showers, B., 119
reactions to differing instruction Simpson, R.L., 204
methods and, 96—7 simulations (simulated classroom
reasons for focus on teacher and events), 14
learner roles, 82—4 Sinclair, J. McH., 275
SLA student teacher and, 258-9 SLA, see second language acquisition
Rosenshine, Barak, 252 (SLA)
Rosenthal, R., 52 Smith, D., 43
Roth, D., 120 Smith, F., 190, 191
Rowe, M.B., 20, 158 sociolinguistics, journal use and,
228, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236
Sadow, C., 238 Spack, R., 238
Scheflen, A.E., 120 Spada, N., 19, 165, 297, 301, 306
Schenkein, J., 120 speaking activities (COLT), 300,
Schmidt, R.W., 216, 223 302, 303
Schumann, John, 225 ~ Spradley, J.P., 219
Schwab, J., 63 Stenhouse, L., 76
SCORE (Seating Chart Observation Stevick, E., 112
REcords), 49-52 structuring concept, 11
second language acquisition (SLA) student behavior analysis (AMEP
journal use and, 228, 229, 230, program), 73
231,233,235 student case exercise, 145-6

336
 Index
student replies, handling of, 278 teacher training program and,
students 128-9
grouping of, 12 opportunities for change in teach-
observation of student and teacher ing behavior, 124—5
talk, 51 as research, 118-19, 129-30
questions and, 5—6, 7, 8, 9 researchers and, 130
see also limited English proficiency research process procedures and,
(LEP) students 119-21
student teacher, 15 student’s discussion of classroom
defining, 104 and teaching experiences, 125—8
diary studies and, 218, 221 student-teacher relationships, 118
discussing teaching, 22—4 teacher education views, 118-19
experiences review (exercise), teacher educators and, 129-30
142-3 teaching behavior change and,
guidelines for investigative projects 118
and, 21-2 student teacher professional
journals and, 227 development
“learned helplessness’’, 107, education and practical training
183 goals of, 134-5
limitations on teacher preparation, self-knowledge (of attitudes and
16 beliefs about language teaching),
observing teaching act and, 18-21 135-44
professional development, 254, teaching philosophy and, 132—4
258 subject-matter knowledge, 43
reflective teaching and, 248 supervision
SLA and teacher-student relation- aims of, 182—4
ship, 258-9 alternative, 158-9
teaching a class, 17-18 collaborative, 159-60
see also teachers creative, 162-3
student teacher intervention data and, 186-7, 189-91
characteristics of the helping pro- defining clinical, 168-71
cess, 105—7 directive, 156-8
defining process terms, 104—5 Egyptian case study of clinical,
directive form of, 107-9, 111 173-81
nondirective form of, 111-14 helping and, 182-3, 193, 195-6
student teacher goals and balance meanings in conversations about
of “training” strategies, 103—4 teaching and, 193-5
teacher-learner (teacher educator— nondirective, 160-1
student teacher) relationship, note taking and, 186—7
103, 116-17 practices in, 184-93
training/development model for self-help—explorative, 163-6
educating teachers, 114-16 self-observation and, 191-3
use of alternative form of, supervisor roles and, 156
109-11 technical language and, 188-9
student teacher observation, see training and education functions
teacher observation and, 169-71
student teacher practicum study words implying judgments and,
changes in patterns established in

337
Index

supervision (cont.) developments in, 3, 245

Yugoslavian case study of clinical, entrance standards and, 255
171-3 implications of knowledge-based
society and, 254—5
TALOS (Target Language Observa- inservice training and, 284
tion Scheme), 19, 116, 165, 189 macro (holistic education) ap-
Tarone, E., 247 proach to, 9-13, 14-15
tasks micro (training view of teaching)
AMEP worksheet and, 80 approach to, 4—9, 14
defining teacher, 11 professionalism and, 3
motivational analysis (teacher ob- reports on, 245—6
servation) of, 60—61 student teacher practicum study
new teaching material analysis and, 118-19
and, 91-2 theoretical basis of, 3—4
tapes and classroom language, teacher education practicum, see stu-
275-6 dent teacher practicum study
teacher and learner role relation- teacher expectations, 52—53
ships and, 94 teacher observation
teacher preparation activity, 27, at-task behavior coding and,
30331 51-2
Taylor, Roy, 92 audio and video recordings and,
Taylor, S.J., 219 46
teacher and student role relationship, classroom management and, 53
see role relationships (teacher ethnographic observation in an
and learner) ESL classroom (example) and,
teacher and student talk, 51 54-7
teacher behavior analysis (AMEP ethnography and, 44, 45-6, 47
program), 73 group management and, 53, 59
teacher behavior, categories of, 8, 9 motivation and, 53—4, 60-1
student teachers and, 19—20 movement patterns and, 52
teacher development purpose of formal program of,
analysis of teaching and, 203-4, 43-4
213 qualitative approaches to, 44—5
effective teacher research and, quantitative approaches to, 47-9
246-7 SCORE and, 49-52
model of, 254—7 selective verbatiin techniques and,
need for change in, 251—4 47
professional development and, teacher and student talk and, 51
250-1 teacher expectations and, 52-3
program evaluation and, 266-8 transition periods and, 53, 59
program for, 260-6 see also observation
second language framework of, teacher preparation activities
257-60 awareness-raising practices and,
teacher education and, 245—6 26, 27, 36, 164
see also reflective teaching experimental practices and, 26—
teacher education 7, 36
categories of teacher behavior outline of, 26-8
and, 8 procedures for, 32—4

338
 Index
sample activity and, 30-1 teaching situations (attitude exer-
sample plan and, 34, 35 cise), 140-1
tasks to perform and, 27, 30, Telatnik, M.A., 217, 220, 221, 223
a1 Tetenbaum, T.J., 254, 256, 266-7
ways of providing data, 27, 28- textbooks, 29, 287
30, 31 Tikunoff, W.J., 11, 12, 13
teachers time-on-task (engaged time) concept >
curriculum development and, 62 6-7, 8-9, 274
defining teacher educator, 104 training strategy (student teacher),
as researchers, 64, 70-3, 75 103-4
research on effective, 246-7 transcripts of lessons, 29
student teacher practicum study Tripp, D., 209
and teacher educator, 129-30 Tucker, J.A., 119
third world, 176 tutorials, 14
see also student teacher; role rela-
tionships (teacher and learner) Ullmann, R., 19, 165
teacher supervision, see supervision University of Minnesota, 245, 260,
teacher talk analysis (AMEP pro- 263, 265-6, 267
gram), 72—3 U.S. Information Agency, 290
teaching
attitudes about language, values, role relationships (teacher
135-44 and learner) and, 85—8
clinical supervision and effective, van Lier, L., 224
169 Van Manen, M., 202
describing (by student teachers), verbal flow technique, 51
164-5 video recordings, 54
identifying “good,” 156—7 AMEP program and, 66, 69
student teacher attitude about ef- mapping (reflective teaching) and,
fective, 139, 143-4 209
see also reflective teaching observing teaching act and, 18
teaching assistantships, 14 role relationship analysis and, 85
teaching behavior self-help supervision and, 165
clinical supervision and, 169 student teacher professional devel-
effective teachers and, 247 opment analysis and, 146-50
reflective teaching and, 203 teacher observation and, 46
teaching behavior change teacher preparation activities and,
clinical supervision case study 28-9
(Egypt) and, 176, 180 VISTA, 283
self-help—explorative supervision
and, 165 wait-time (time teacher allows after a
student teacher and, 118, 124-5, question), 5, 6, 7, 8, 66
128-9 Walker, C., 247
teaching diary, see diary studies Walker, R., 75, 76
teaching materials, teacher and Webb, N.M., 12
learner relationship, 88—92 wide-lens qualitative approach, 44
teaching philosophy, student teacher Williams, E., 29
professional development and, workshops, 14, 32, 168
132-4 Wragg, E.C., 19

339
Index

written ethnographies, see ” see also supervision

ethnography
Zeichner, K.M., 202, 203
Yugoslavian clinical supervision Zimpher, N.L., 119
study, 171-3 Zumwalt, K.K., 119

340
 rie
ee ee +
ae
oe

Second Lan
Langwage“Teacher Education
__Bhiseotéction provides a state-of-the-art account of current
approaches to second language teacher education. It is a
valuable source book on classroom observation, supervision,
rWeraVel alcomcvederence uee= 6 CoyaPmr-Vole ucr-(ol
oulorcasoyu<\ern (eon Wolem olero)iq
reflects the shift in orientation from teacher training to
teacher education, in which teachers are involved in
developing their own theories of teaching, in understanding -
the nature of teacher decision making, and in developing
strategies for critical self-awareness and self-evaluation. It is
aimed at teachers, teacher educators, and workshop
facilitators involved in both preservice and inservice second
lEevoreaur-texem rer-(o)o(e) mmerelecer10(0)0m

~Se ee: | % |
CAMBRIDGE /
- UNIVERSITY PRESS |
fo
= a
——
oe | _ See ISBN 0-521-338779-5
8779- :

. 9 "780521'387798
ASSERT